IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA ON THE 24th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA ARBITRATION CASE NO. 59 OF 2021 Between:

M/S GORSI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. RAJESH KUMAR RAO, VILLAGE TAKOLI P.O. PANARSA, SUB TEHSIL AUT, DISTT. MANDI ….PETITIONER (BY MR. SUNEET GOEL, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH THROUGH SECRETARY (PUBLIC WORKS) H.P. SECRETARIAT, SHIMLA. 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, MANDI ZONE, HPPWD, DISTRICT MANDI.

3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MANDI DIVISION NO.1, HPPWD MANDI, DISTRICT MANDI H.P.

….RESPONDENTS (BY MR. ASHOK SHARMA, ADVOCATE GENERAL WITH MR. SUDHIR BHATNAGAR AND MR. DESH RAJ THAKUR, ADDITIONAL ADVOCATES GENERAL, AND MR.

NARENDER THAKUR & MR. KAMAL KISHORE SHARMA, DEPUTY ADVOCATES GENERAL)

Whether approved for reportingu?.

This case coming on for ordoers this day, the Court passed the following:

O R D E R

By way of instant petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitratiohn and Conciliation Act as amended upto date, prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to restrain the respondents from encashing the bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 40,50,000/- and Rs. 39,16,000/-, during the pendency of the present petition and rescinding the contract No.

CRF Job No.HP-2018-19-147 executed inter-se parties to the lis.

2. Before case at hand could be heard and decided on its own merits, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General, representing the respondents on instructions states that contract in question already stands rescinded and as such, interim relief, as prayed for, in the instant petition cannot be extended, which fact has been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner, who while pacing on record the communication dated 23.9.2021, issued under the signature of Executive Engineer, HPPWD Division, Seraj at Janjehli, submits thaft rates of substituted items were prepared and sent to the competent authority for approval, and as such, it cannot be said that contract stands rescinded. Learned Advocate General after having perused afroresaid communication states that this communication is with regard to the bills submitted by the petitioner qua the work he has alreadyo done and it has nothing to do with the decision taken by the competent authority with regard to rescission of the contract. He further states that though contract in question stands rescinded, but final ordehr qua the same, could not be passed on account of interim order dated 12.7.2021 passed by this Court.

3. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid development, this Court H sees no reason to interfere in the matter and accordingly, present petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the respondent-department to pass appropriate orders, if not already passed, qua the rescission of the contract, but bank guarantees amounting to Rs. 40,50,000/- and Rs. 39,16,000/-, would not be encashed by the department till the time, Arbitral Tribunal is constituted subsequent to prayer, if any, made by the petitioner. However, aforesaid bank guarantees would be renewed periodically by the petitioner. In the aforesaid terms, present petition is disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any.

24th November, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge