Disposed¶23

Rakesh Rana v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC18 Jun 2026CWP/9445/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Alternative remedy; Right to Information Act, 2005; writ court decline to direct supply of original agreement; tender cancellation; contractor; HPPWD Division Dharamshala; Clause 25 of agreement; Media Convention Centre, Kachahri Adda, Dharamshala; delay of 128 days in refiling condoned; CWP disposed of with liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law; in CMP No.13770 of 2026, delay of 128 days in refiling the petition condoned; pending application(s) disposed of accordingly. ¶23

Rakesh Rana Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the tender cancellation letter dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) and the consequential letter dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-13) should be quashed (prayer in the writ petition; not decided on merits). +1 more

¶14

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek the document (original agreement); it is not for the Writ Court to pass an order directing supply of the documents, as doing so would open the floodgates for similar petitions.

¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice, and Bipin C. Negi, Judge) of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla, disposed of a writ petition by a contractor (Rakesh Rana) who had challenged the cancellation of his tender for the work of Construction of Media Convention Centre, Kachahri Adda, Dharamshala, by letter dated 30.10.2023 (Annexure P-9) and a consequential letter dated 20.01.2024 (Annexure P-13). At the outset, counsel pressed only for a decision on the pending representations and the request dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-12) under Clause 25 of the agreement seeking supply of the original agreement, which the department had declined to hand over on the ground that it was kept in its safe custody (communication dated 27.06.2023, Annexure P-4). The Court held that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek the document in question, and that it is not for the Writ Court to pass an order directing supply of documents, as doing so would open the floodgates for similar petitions. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In CMP No.13770 of 2026, delay of 128 days in refiling the petition was condoned.

¶1

( 2026:HHC:23571 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

CMP No.13770 of 2026 in CWP No.9445 of 2026 Decided on: 18.06.2026

¶4

Rakesh Rana		....Petitioner
	Versus

¶5

State of Himachal Pradesh and Others ....Respondents

¶6

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin C. Negi, Judge

¶7

Whether approved for reporting?¹

¶8

For the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General.

¶9

G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral).

¶10

CMP No.13770 of 2026

¶11

Keeping in view the averments made in the application, delay of 128 days in refiling the petition is condoned.

¶12

2. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

¶13

CWP No.9445 of 2026

¶14

3. Prayer in the present writ petition is to quash the tender cancellation letter dated 30.10.2023 (Anneuxre P-9) and

¶15

the consequential letter dated 20.01.2024 (Anneuxre P-13),

¶16

whereby the petitioner, who was the contractor, was awarded the

¶17

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶18

¶19

tender of the work: Construction of Media Convention Centre, Kachahri Adda, Dharamshala.

¶20

4. Counsel for the petitioner at the outset, presses only to decide the pending representations and the request dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure P-12) under Clause 25 of the agreement, submitting that the respondents are not supplying the original agreement.

¶21

5. Reference is made to the communication dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure P-4), whereby the Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division Dharamshala has communicated that the Agreement was an important document and was required to be kept in safe custody of the department and the same could only be shown on a working day.

¶22

6. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek the document in question. Since that is the case, it is not for the Writ Court to pass an order directing the supply of the documents, as doing so, would open the floodgates for similar petitions.

¶23

7. In such circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶24

¶25

8. Pending application(s), if any, shall stands disposed

¶26

off accordingly.

¶27

(G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice

¶28

(Bipin C. Negi) Judge

¶29