Rajneesh Mohan vs Of
2023 Latest Caselaw 18215 HP

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Rajneesh Mohan vs Of on 21 November, 2023

Author: Ajay Mohan Goel

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

                                                                           .

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

                                             CWP No.9152 of 2023





                                             Decided on: 21.11.20231

    Rajneesh Mohan                                                       ...Petitioner.
                      Versus




                                                of
    State of Himachal Pradesh & others                                  ... Respondents.
    Coram
    Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
    Whether approved for reporting?
                      rt
    _____________________________________________________
    For the petitioner:     Mr. Jeevan Kumar, Advocate.

    For the respondents:             Mr.      Rupinder      Singh       Thakur,
                                     Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, Additional Advocate
                                     Generals, Mr. Rohit Sharma, Mr. Sumit
                                     Sharma, Deputy Advocate Generals, with


                                     Mr. Rajat Chauhan, Law Officer, for
                                     respondents­State.

    Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the

following relief:­

"(1) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, especially in

the nature of MANDAMUS for directing the Respondents to make the payment of Rs.3,04,95,978/­ qua the work executed by the Petitioner along with interest @ 18% per annum."

2. This Court is of the considered view that as the recovery

of amount is being sought by the petitioner for execution of contract

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

.

entered into between him and the respondents, therefore, the

petitioner either has to invoke the arbitration clause, if any, in the

contract entered into between him and the respondents, or he has to

file a suit for recovery, as a mandamus cannot be issued directing

of the respondents to make good the payment allegedly due to the

petitioner from the respondents on account of work executed by him.

rt Whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the amount being claimed

and if yes, then to what amount the petitioner is entitled to, are the

facts which need to be proved by leading cogent evidence and this

cannot be done in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India.

3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Pending

miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge November 21, 2023 (Rishi)