Dismissed¶9

Excess Hydro Power v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC12 Feb 2026WPMS/2830/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal of writ petition on alternate-remedy grounds — arbitration clause in lease agreement dated 30.12.2021 for the Kedarnath-2 hydro project, District Rudraprayag; termination order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure No.1) issued by respondent no.2-UREDA after two years of a seven-year (plus three-year extension) term; respondent alleges notices for breach of agreement conditions; petitioner admitted intention to invoke arbitration. Search terms: alternate remedy; arbitration clause; lease termination; UREDA; Kedarnath-2 hydro project; Rudraprayag; writ petition dismissed; counter affidavit; IA/2/2025; WPMS No.2830 of 2025; Pankaj Purohit, J.; decided 12.02.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief to petitioner; express liberty left to invoke the arbitration clause pursuant to the lease contract/agreement dated 30.12.2021. ¶9

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.2830 of 2025 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Mr. Syed Kashif Jafri, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Jaywardhan Kandpal, learned S.C. for the State. 3. Dr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for respondent no.2 through V.C. 4. Counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 is accepted on record. Application (IA/2/2025) stands disposed of. 5. With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for disposal at this stage itself. 6. It is the contention of petitioner that petitioner-Hydro- Power Company was given the hydro project at Kedarnath- 2 in District Rudraprayag by virtue of a lease agreement dated 30.12.2021. The period for running the hydro project was for seven years which was extendable up to three years. It is the grievance of petitioner that petitioner’s agreement was put to an end by respondent no.2 abruptly after a period of two years vide order dated 05.12.2024 (Annexure No.1). It is feeling aggrieved by the said order, present petition has been filed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-UREDA has argued that the agreement was not brought to an end abruptly, rather petitioner – Company was issued various notices but they were not following the conditions of the agreement, and therefore, the agreement was brought to an end. 8. In the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 has specifically pleaded that there is an arbitration clause but
instead of availing the said remedy, petitioner has straightway knocked the doors of this Court. It is also contended that the petitioner at this stage also may avail the remedy of invoking the arbitration clause.

SL. No.
Date
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
directions and
Registrar’s order with
Signatures
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
WPMS No.2830 of 2025
Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Syed Kashif Jafri, learned counsel for the
petitioner.

2.
Mr. Jaywardhan Kandpal, learned S.C. for the State.
3.
Dr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for respondent no.2
through V.C.
4.
Counter affidavit filed by respondent no.2 is accepted
on record. Application (IA/2/2025) stands disposed of.
5.
With the consent of parties, the matter is taken up for
disposal at this stage itself.
6.
It is the contention of petitioner that petitioner-Hydro-
Power Company was given the hydro project at Kedarnath-
2 in District Rudraprayag by virtue of a lease agreement
dated 30.12.2021. The period for running the hydro project
was for seven years which was extendable up to three
years. It is the grievance of petitioner that petitioner’s
agreement was put to an end by respondent no.2 abruptly
after a period of two years vide order dated 05.12.2024
(Annexure No.1). It is feeling aggrieved by the said order,
present petition has been filed.
7.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.2-UREDA has argued that the agreement
was not brought to an end abruptly, rather petitioner –
Company was issued various notices but they were not
following the conditions of the agreement, and therefore,
the agreement was brought to an end.
8.
In the counter affidavit, the respondent no.2 has
specifically pleaded that there is an arbitration clause but

instead of availing the said remedy, petitioner has
straightway knocked the doors of this Court. It is also
contended that the petitioner at this stage also may avail
the remedy of invoking the arbitration clause.

9.	Having considered the rival submissions of parties,
parti	cularly, the admission on the part of petitioner that he
shall	invoke the arbitration clause pursuant to the lease
contr	act/agreement dated 30.12.2021, this writ petition is
dism	issed on the ground of alternate remedy of arbitration.
It is	open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of invoking
the a	rbitration clause.
R.Dang	(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.02.2026

Having considered the rival submissions of parties,

parti

cularly, the admission on the part of petitioner that he

shall

invoke the arbitration clause pursuant to the lease

contr

act/agreement dated 30.12.2021, this writ petition is

dism

issed on the ground of alternate remedy of arbitration.

It is

open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of invoking

the a

rbitration clause.

R.Dang

(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
12.02.2026

Excess Hydro Power v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Excess Hydro Power v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shamshuddin Khan Vs State of Uttarakhand

Madarsa Majidiya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shivam Tripathi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Pratibha Rawat Vs Pharmacy Council State of Uttarakhand

Brindra Devi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Mr Tube Private Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand