Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2233 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 20 March, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                                                       2026:UHC:1945
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
        Writ Petition Misc. Single No.662 of 2026
                        20th March, 2026
Ram Babu Singh Contractor                        ..........Petitioner

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others               ..........Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Arvind Vashisth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.
Divanshi Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vivek Pathak
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos.1, 3
and 4.
Mr. Manoj Kumar, learned C.G.S.C. for the Union of
India/respondent no.2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby the petitioner has sought a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no.3-Superintendent Engineer, P.W.D. to consider and decide his representation dated 16.03.2026, annexure no.5, to the writ petition, submitted by him and upon such consideration adjust the outstanding amount of ₹30,04,049/- payable to the petitioner against the security deposit of ₹25,90,003/-.

2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was given a contract by respondent no.3 for construction of Metal Beam Crash Barrier from Km. 63.00 to Km. 263.115 KM (Marchula to Buakhal) on NH-121(309) in the State of Uttarakhand.

3. The said work was completed by the petitioner on 08.05.2023 and on completion of the work a completion certificate was issued by respondent no.3 on 28.11.2024, which is annexed as annexure no.1 to the

2026:UHC:1945 writ petition.

4. There are dues in favour of the petitioner with the respondent-State to the tune of ₹30,04,049/- since 2024 and petitioner wants that money to be adjusted against the security deposit of ₹25,90,003/- pursuant to the letter of acceptance dated 16.03.2026 in subsequent contract, annexed as annexure nos.3 and 4.

5. For the said purpose the petitioner has moved a representation to respondent no.3 dated 16.03.2026. The said representation is still pending disposal with the respondent-authorities.

6. A limited prayer has been made by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that if respondent no.3 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 16.03.2026 within a stipulated time, ends of justice would be met.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) have no objection to the said proposition given by learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner regarding disposal of the representation dated 16.03.2026, in accordance with law.

8. In such view of the matter the writ petition stands disposed of and it is provided that respondent no.3-Superintendent Engineer, P.W.D. shall decide the representation dated 16.03.2026, annexure no.5 to the writ petition, expeditiously not later than 15 days' from the date of production of certified copy of this order, in accordance with law, by a speaking order.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 20.03.2026 SK