Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/15696/2026 of M/S GARG SONS ESTATE PROMOTERS PVT LTD Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS on 18 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.15696 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd. …….Petitioner Versus State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWP No.15696 of 2026 Date of Decision: 18.09.2026 _______________________________________________________ M/s Garg Sons Estate Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
…….Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. … Respondents _______________________________________________________
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1
For the Petitioner: Mr. Suneet Goel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vivek Negi & Mr. Vishwas Kaushal, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General. ____________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral):
Precisely the grouse of the petitioner, who is a Class-A contractor, as has been highlighted in petition and further canvassed by Mr. Suneet Goel, learned Senior Counsel duly assisted by Mr. Vivek Negi, learned counsel representing the petitioner, is that construction work awarded to him vide award letter dated 29.01.2020 was completed on 15.05.2025, but yet no steps have been taken to prepare final bill. He states that defect liability period has also lapsed on 14.05.2026, but yet no steps are being taken to prepare the final bill as well as clearance thereof, putting petitioner in financial distress.
1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to call for reply filed on behalf of the respondents, who are otherwise represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General. Mr. Chauhan fairly states that bills, if not already prepared, shall be prepared expeditiously.
3. Consequently, in view of the above, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the same with a direction to respondent No. 3 to ensure that final bill of the work, as detailed in the petition, is prepared and verified within a period of one month and thereafter payment of the same, after adjustments as per contract, if any, may also be made within a period of four months. Ordered accordingly. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate proceedings in the appropriate Court of law qua the surviving grievance, if any. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. p
(Sandeep Sharma),
Judge September 18, 2026 (Sunil)