Disposed¶33

M/S the Shivam Enterprises v. Union of India and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC16 Dec 2025CWP/7572/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 226 writ maintainability where payment entitlement is factually disputed; contractor's claim for pending balance of Rs. 1,74,69,664/- under EPC-42 Kalka-Shimla agreement (NH-22/New NH-05, HPPWD); mandamus refused; disputed facts not decidable in writ jurisdiction; petition closed with liberty to seek alternative remedies; undertaking and signed final bill relied upon by State; contractors' claims Committee notification dated 07.07.2025.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition closed with liberty to the petitioner to have recourse to such remedies as are available to it, in accordance with law; pending miscellaneous applications disposed of accordingly. Mandamus for release of the claimed balance payment was not issued. ¶33

M/S the Shivam Enterprises Vs Union of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents No. 1, 3, 5 and 6 should be directed by writ of mandamus to release the alleged pending balance payment of Rs. 1,74,69,664/- under the EPC-42, Kalka-Shimla agreement. +1 more

¶11

Ratio / Principle

As there are disputed facts between the parties as to whether the entire emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled stand released, these issues cannot be decided by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶32

Key takeaways

The better course for the petitioner is to have recourse to the other legal remedies available to it.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla — CWP No. 7572 of 2024, decided 16.12.2025 (Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge, oral). The petitioner-contractor sought mandamus directing respondents to release the alleged pending balance payment of Rs. 1,74,69,664/- under EPC-42 of the Kalka-Shimla agreement. The respondents-State replied that the work (road safety improvement on NH-22/New NH-05 Kalka-Shimla-Wangtoo Road on EPC mode for Rs, 9.1 Crores, nine-month stipulated period from appointment dated 10.06.2022) was completed within time, the entire payments were released and accepted without protest, the final bill and measurement book were admitted and signed by the petitioner, and an undertaking that nothing was due had been furnished; the Government-constituted contractors' claims Committee (notification dated 07.07.2025) had no pending bill of this petitioner. Holding that there were disputed facts between the parties as to whether the entire emoluments due to the petitioner stood released, the Court held these issues could not be decided under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and closed the writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to pursue other available legal remedies; pending miscellaneous applications stood disposed of accordingly.

¶1

2025:HHC:43939

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CWP No. 7572 of 2024

¶4

Decided on: 16.12.2025

¶5

M/s The Shivam Enterprises … Petitioner

¶6

Versus Union of India and others … Respondents Coram

¶7

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.

¶8

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶9

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Ms. Amanpreet Kaur, Advocate through VC and Ms. Anchal Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rajinder Thakur, CGC for respondents No. 1 and 3. : Mr. Rajpal Thakur, Addl. AG for respondents No. 2, 4 and 6. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶10

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:-

¶11

“(i) To issue writ, in the nature of ‘Mandamus’ directing respondents No. 1, 3, 5 and 6 to release the pending balance payment of Rs. 1,74,69,664/- of EPC-42, Kalka-Shimla agreement, in the interest of justice.”

¶12

When this case was lastly listed before the Court on 11.12.2025, the following order was passed:-

¶13

“As per report of the Registry, the report of the

¶14

Committee has not been furnished. Learned Counsel appearing

¶15

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶16

¶17

2025:HHC:43939

¶18

for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been invited by the Committee for any negotiations.

¶19

This Court is of the considered view that if that is so, then the same amounts to contempt of Court because as far back as on 31.10.2025, the Court was intimated by learned Deputy Advocate General that the Committee stood constituted and the date was being collected by the Committee and that petitioner shall be associated by the Committee before any final decision is arrived at.

¶20

The case is ordered to be listed on 16.12.2025, on which date learned Deputy Advocate General shall apprise the Court as to what all the Committee has done as from the date of passing of the above mentioned orders, i.e. order dated 31.10.2025.”

¶21

Today, learned Additional Advocate General has handed over instructions received from the Executive Engineer, NH Division, HPPWD, Theog, which are reproduced herein below:-

¶22

“In this regard it is submitted that as per the directions issued vide the matter was pursued with the office of Ld. District Attorney at the office of the worthy Engineer-in-chief Shimla and data of the constituted committee is attached for your kind perusal and also refer to the matter in this regard, attention is invited to the communication issued from the office of the no PW-LC-worthy Engineer-in-Chief. HPPWD vide letter CWPNo.7572/2023/Shivam Enterprises/-2610 dated

¶23

¶24

2025:HHC:43939 08/12/2025, endorsed by the District Attorney (PW), wherein it has been categorically clarified that, the issue involved in the matter is not with respect to any admitted liability, but relates to a claim raised by the petitioner to which he is not entitled, as per the respondents. The entire admissible payment in respect of the executed work already stands released to the petitioner and no bill or amount is pending. The Committee for deciding claims in respeet of pending bills of contractors has been constituted by the Government vide notification dated 07.07.2025, and in the present case, no such pending bill exists. The information as desired by the Government for placing the matter before the Committee had already been submitted vide e-mail dated 16.07.2025. The matter is being contested by the Department on merits, and instructions have been sought for apprising the Office of the Learned Advocate General accordingly.

¶25

It is, therefore, respectfully submitted that the factual position, as clarified above, may kindly be taken on record for the purpose of compliance of the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court please.”

¶26

Reply filed by the respondents-State has also been perused by the Court and relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

¶27

“That the respondent in response of plea to the petitioner submits that, the agreement in question was entered between the parties with respect to improvement of Road Safety from km

¶28

¶29

2025:HHC:43939 200/00 to 219/350 of NH-22 (New NH-05) Kalka-ShimlaWangtoo Road in selected stretches between in the State of Himachal Pradesh on EPC mode, for Rs, 9.1 Crores with stipulated period 9 months from the date of appointment i.e. 10.06.2022. It is mater of record that the petitioner had completed the work within stipulated period and the entire payments due to him stand already released and accepted by the petitioner without any protest and resistance. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner his accepted the measurement of the work done by him and petitioner never raised any dispute qua that, as such, entire payment has already been released to petitioner as per work done on the spot. Copy of MB (Measurement Book along with Final Bill duly admitted and signed by the petitioner) is annexed herewith as Annexure R-2). In addition to this the petitioner has also furnished one undertaking, wherein he categorically undertook that nothing is due from respondent department on account of execution of work in question, which is Superintending Engineer, NH Circle, HPPWD , annexed herewith as Annexure R- 3, hence present writ petition is not maintainable in the present form.”

¶30

This Court is of the considered view that in the peculiar facts of this case as there are disputed facts between the parties as to whether the entire emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled,

¶31

¶32

2025:HHC:43939 stands released in favour of the petitioner or not, these issues cannot be decided by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the better course for the petitioner shall be to have recourse to the other legal remedies which are available to it.

¶33

Accordingly, this writ petition is closed, with liberty to the petitioner to have recourse to such remedies, as are available to it, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge

¶35

December 16, 2025 ( narender )

M/S the Shivam Enterprises v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S the Shivam Enterprises v. Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ran Singh Vs Ashish Kohli

Ramesh Kumar Vs Abhishek Jain and Anr.

M/S Satyam Prasad Bhandar and Others Vs A.S. Narang and Others

Sanjeev Chauhan Vs State of Hp

Urmila Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others

Rajender Kumar Vs Principal Secretary-Cum-Fc Rev and Others