Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2830/2025 on 12 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
SL. No. Date directions and
Registrar's order with
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Signatures
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, particularly, the admission on the part of petitioner that he shall invoke the arbitration clause pursuant to the lease contract/agreement dated 30.12.2021, this writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy of arbitration. It is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy of invoking the arbitration clause.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.02.2026 R.Dang