Himachal Pradesh High Court
Through Sh. Arun Kumar vs Of on 6 July, 2026
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2026:HHC:26633 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH
AT SHIMLA
CWP No: 9721 of 2023
Alongwith CWP No: 115 of 2024
Reserved on: 07.04.2026
Pronounced on: 06.07.2026.
.
_______________________________________________________
CWP No: 9721 of 2023
1. M/s Kanda Wine
Through Sh. Arun Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
of
...Respondents
________________________________________________________
AND
CWP No: 115 of 2024
rt
2. Sanjeev Kumar & Others
....Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh & Others
...Respondents
Coram:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge
1Whether approved for reporting ? Yes.
For the petitioner: Mr. H.S. Rana and Mr.
Amrinder Singh Advocates in
CWP No. 9721 of 2023.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Sushant
Keprate, Additional Advocate
General, for the Respondents
1 to 4-State.
Respondent No 5 deleted vide
order dated 09.07.2025.
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior
Counsel alongwith Mr. Prantap
Sharma, Advocate for the
1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-2- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Respondents 6 to 9 in CWP No
9721 of 2021.
AND
Mr. Subhash Sharma, Senior
Counsel alongwith Mr. Prantap
.
Sharma, Advocate for the
Petitioners in CWP No: 115 of
2024
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate
General with Mr. Sushant
Keprate, Additional Advocate
General, for the Respondents
1 to 4-State.
of
Mr. H.S. Rana and Mr.
Amrinder Singh Advocates for
Respondent No 5 in CWP No
rt 115 of 2024.
Ranjan Sharma, Judge
M/s Kanda Wine, through its partner
has come before this Court in CWP No 9721
of 2023, assailing the orders dated 22.11.2023
[Annexure P-1], passed by the Respondent No 1
-Financial Commissioner (Excise) as an Appellate
Authority, exercising powers under Section 68 (2)
of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011 and
the order dated 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2], passed
by the Respondent No 3-Collector (Excise)-cum-
Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise
(North Zone) Palampur (HP), cancelling the liquor
license of the petitioner by exercising the powers
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-3- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
vested under Section 29 of the Himachal Pradesh
Excise Act 2011, on account of non-remission of
license fee for the period in question; and the
.
connected CWP No. 115 of 2024 has been filed
by Mr. Sanjeev Kumar and three others assailing
final notice issued on 30.11.2013, [Annexure P-1],
by Respondent no 4-Deputy Commissioner State
of
Taxes and Excise Una directing them to deposit
the license fee and the penalty amounting to
rt
Rs 2,80,60,881/- failing which, said amount was
liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue
from them.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CWP No 9721 OF 2023:
2. In CWP No 9721 of 2023, M/s Kanda
Wine, being a partnership firm, has filed the
instant writ petition, through its partner Shri
Arun Kumar against the State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, seeking the following relief(s):
(i). The impugned orders dated 22.11.2023,
18.11.2023 & order of freezing Accounts if
any passed by respondents may kindly be
quashed and set aside and the Petitioner
may kindly be permitted to operate his vends
as per license granted to him with respect::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-4- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
to RETAIL LICENSEE, L-2/L-14/L-14S,
UNIT NO. 03, SANTOSHGARH in District Una,
HP which consists of Nine liquor vends i.e.
L-14 Ajouli, L-2 Santoshgarh, L-14 Udaypur
near Tubewell, L-14 Pekhubela, L-14 Sanoli,.
L-14 Mazara, L- 14 Santoshgarh Border, L-2
Santoshgarh Border, L-14 Santoshgarh, and
one sub vend Sanoli Border and justice be
done.
(ii). That the reauction fixed on 23.11.2023 may
of
be quashed and set aside and License
given to Respondent No 5 on lower bid may
kindly quashed and set aside in the interest
rt to justice and fair play.
(iii). That the condition no 2.42 of Annual Excise
Act 2023-24 (Annexure P-4) may be quashed
and set aside being totally arbitrary and
unconstitutional and against the principle of
natural justice.
(iv). That direction may be given to Respondent
No.1 to initiate inquiry against the Respondent
No.3 concerned Authority who has with
malafide intention has illegally freezed the
accounts of petitioner day before hearing
and before the date on which the pending
amount is to be deposited as per notice
dated 17.11.2023.
(v). That the direction may kindly be issued
to respondents to submit report before the
Hon’ble Court against how many defaulter
Licensee the similar action of cancellation
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-5- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
as per Rule 2.42 has been taken by the
Respondents.
(vi). That the Petitioner may kindly be allowed
to continue as per license dated 31.03.2023
and the losses incurred due to illegal action
.
of the Respondents no 3 & 4 may kindly
be ordered to be adjusted in the License
fees of the Petitioner.
(vii). That the recovery if any should be made
from the concerned authority who with malafide
of
intention targeted the Petitioner and in illegal
manner cancelled the license of Petitioner.
2(i). rt Case as set-up by Learned Counsel is
that the petitioner-firm, M/s Kanda Wine, has
been carrying on business of liquor for the past
six years. It is averred that on 18.03.2023, his
firm M/s Kanda Wine, was allotted a liquor
retail license for the year 2023-24 of L-2/L-14
/L-14-S in Unit No 3-Santoshgarh in District
Una, consisting of nine liquor vends and one
sub-vend for an amount of Rs Nine Crores and
Twenty Lakhs [i.e. Rs 9,20,00000]. It is averred
that though petitioner was regular in remitting
license fee till June 2023 but from July 2023
his business was adversely affected in view of
natural calamity struck the state and the fact
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-6- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
that in bordering area of Punjab, the liquor was
sold at lower rates and due to this, petitioner
could not deposit-remit the license fee to State
.
Authorities and for non-remission of license fee,
the Respondent no 4-Deputy Commissioner State
Taxes and Excise Una forwarded a communication
to the Respondent No 3-Zonal Incharge-Collector-
of
cum-Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise
(North Zone) Palampur, who in turn passed an
order on
rt 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2], cancelling
the liquor license of the petitioner by invoking
Section 29 of Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011
and Condition No 2.42 of Excise Announcements
for the year 2023-2024.
2(ii). Feeling aggrieved against the order of
cancelling the license on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2],
petitioner filed an appeal under Section 68 (2)
of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011 before
the Appellate Authority-cum-Financial Commissioner
(Excise) vide Appeal No 8 of 2023 and the same
was dismissed on 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1].
It is in this backdrop, the petitioner
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-7- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
has assailed the order passed by Respondent
No 3-Collector (Excise)-cum-Joint Commissioner of
State Taxes and Excise on 18.11.2023 [Annexure
.
P-2] cancelling the license of the petitioner ; and
the order passed by the Respondent No 1-cum-
Appellate Authority on 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1]
dismissing the appeal; and the action of State
of
Authorities in reauctioning the liquor unit(s) to
the Respondent No 5 by a backdoor procedure
on the
rt
basis of the fake documents submitted
by the aforesaid respondent; and the action of
the Authorities in freezing his bank account
on 17.11.2023 was illegal; and has laid a
challenge to the Condition No 2.42 of Annual
Excise Announcements 2023-24 [Annexure P-4]
to violative of the principles of natural justice,
arbitrary and unconstitutional; with the prayer
to quash the Impugned Orders and for restoring
his liquor license granted on 31.03.2023 and to
allow the petitioner to continue his business in
terms of the said license.
3. In Reply to CWP No 9721 of 2023,
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-8- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated
11.03.2024 of Commissioner State Taxes and
Excise Himachal Pradesh.
.
3(i). Perusal of the Reply-Affidavit states that
present petition is not maintainable and neither
any fundamental right nor any legal right of
the petitioner has been violated. It is averred
of
that petitioner was bound to comply with the
conditions of license but since the petitioner has
rt
failed to remit the license fee as per the terms
and conditions of license, therefore, the license
was cancelled in-accordance with law and once
petitioner had participated in an auction with
open eyes and was awarded the contract /tender
then, petitioner cannot turn around and resile
from the terms and conditions which were accepted
with open eyes.
3(ii). Reply states that as per the Condition
No 2.42 of Excise Announcements for the year
2023-2024, the license fee was to be remitted
in 12 installments by 15 th of March of financial
year and license fee payable for particular month
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
-9- ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
was to be deposited in government treasury
by 7 th day of subsequent month and in case,
monthly license fee was not deposited by 7 th
.
day of subsequent month, then, the District
In-charge was bound to forward a report to
Zonal In-charge within three days and in case,
the licensee still failed to deposit the license
of
fee thereafter, the Zonal In-charge was to take
steps for cancelling the license of the liquor vend
rt
/unit within three days positively.
3(iii). Reply-Affidavit states that the petitioner
applied for license for retail sale and based
on said license, Unit No-III for Santoshgarh in
District Una was allotted to the petitioner on
18.3.2023 for an amount of Rs 9,20,00000/-.
Reply states that due to natural calamity which
struck the State and considering this situation
and after due approval of state government, the
Respondent no 2-Commissioner of State Tax and
Excise issued a communication on 26.09.2023
[Annexure R-2, not on record but not denied
by petitioner in rejoinder also], that license-fee
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 10 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
payable in August 2023 should be deposited before
07.10.2023 and license fee payable in September
2023 should be deposited by 07.11.2023 and the
.
license fee for the subsequent months of October
2023 and thereafter was payable in accordance
with annual excise announcements.
3(iv). Reply states that the State Authorities
of
afforded adequate opportunity to the petitioner
for depositing the pending license fee and he
was
rt
heard by Respondent No.3 on 09.11.2023,
10.11.2023, 15.11.2023, 16.11.2023 and 18.11.2023
but for non-deposit of license fee, the Respondent
No 3-Collector (Excise)-cum-Joint Commissioner
of State Taxes and Excise Palampur passed an
order on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2] cancelling
the liquor license of the petitioner.
Reply-Affidavit states that even during
the appeal, the Respondent No 1-cum-Appellate
Authority (Excise) gave an opportunity to the
petitioner on 21.11.2023 and on 22.11.2023,
for depositing the license fee but for non-deposit
of license-fee, the appeal filed under Section 68
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 11 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
(2) was dismissed on 22.11.2023.
So far as, the freezing of accounts is
concerned, it was averred that the bank account
.
of the petitioner (Arun Kumar) was freezed to
secure State excise revenue. Reply indicates that
after cancellation of license of the petitioner, the
cancelled unit(s) were re-allotted to the Respondent
of
No 5 in accordance with Condition no 3.26 of
Excise Announcements 2023-24 in a transparent
rt
manner. Reply further states that Condition No
2.24 and 2.42 of Annual Excise Announcements
for the year 2023-2024, Annexure R-1, are in
conformity with the Excise Act, the Rules and the
law.
In this background, the State Authorities
have opposed the claim with the prayer to dismiss
the writ petition.
4. In rejoinder, the petitioner has reiterated
the averments made in the writ petition.
4(i). During the pendency of present writ
petition, an application i.e. CMP No 3630 of
2024, was filed by one Shri Sanjeev Kumar
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
- 12 - ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
and three others seeking impleadment and
this application was allowed by this Court vide
order dated 26.03.2025 and accordingly, the
.
aforesaid applicants were impleaded as party-
Respondents No 6 to 9 in present proceedings.
These newly added Respondnets 6 to 9 filed
Reply-Affidavit dated 27.05.2025, [at page 202 of
of
paper book], with the stand that the petitioner
namely Shri Arun Kumar was allotted license
rt
on 18.03.2023, but without mentioning about the
partnership deed and since these respondents
were nowhere reflected as partners in the license
therefore, no liability could have been fastened
on them by the State Authorities-Respondents,
by calling upon by way of a final notice issued
on 30.11.2023 [Annexure R-6/1] to deposit the
amount of Rs 2,80,60,881/- as mentioned in said
notice. It is further averred that mere freezing
of individual bank account of Shri Arun Kumar
[alleged partner] cannot form basis to implicate
and cast the liability on Replying Respondents
were not partners of the alleged firm, as stated
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 13 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
in Paras 11 and 17 (a) to (i) of Reply Affidavit
and the averments made in the counter writ
petition i.e. CWP No 115 of 2024, titled as
.
Sanjeev Kumar and others versus State of HP
and others, with the prayer to dismiss the writ
petition and to quash the final notice issued
on 30.11.2023 [Annexure R-6/1] which is subject
of
matter of CWP No 115 of 2024.
4(ii). During the pendency of the instant writ
rt
petition, vide orders dated 18.06.2025, the name
of Respondent No 5 [Gitanjali Dewedi] was deleted
from the array of respondents in the instant
case.
FACTUAL MATRIX IN CWP No 115 of 2024:
5. In CWP No 115 of 2024, the petitioners
Sanjeev Kumar and three others [being Respondents
6 to 9 in the connected CWP No 9721 of 2023] have
come up before this Court seeking the following
reliefs:
(i). As writ in the nature of certiorari may
kindly be issued quashing and setting
aside the final notice dated 30.11.2023,
Annexure P-1.
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 14 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
(ii). That a writ in the nature of mandamus
may kindly be issued to the respondent
State for ascertaining the conscious
lapses and illegalities committed by various
official respondents in wrongly framing.
the petitioners as partners in M/s Kanda
Wine and also to take suitable action
against the erring officials, also with the
private respondent.”
5(i). Case as set-up by Learned Senior Counsel
of
is that the Respondent No 4-Deputy Commissioner
State Taxes and Excise, Una, had issued a final
rt
notice on 30.11.2023 [Annexure P-1] pointing out
a huge liability of license fee and penalty of Rs
2,80,60,881/- on the petitioners who were alleged
to be partners of M/s Kanda Wines. It was averred
that the Respondent No 5, namely Arun Kumar,
was allotted the liquor license on 18.03.2023 for
license fee of Rs 9,20,00,000/- whereas partnership
deed allegedly executed on 22.03.2023 [Annexure P-2]
was never executed by them and thus the alleged
partnership deed was falsely and illegally prepared
by Respondent No 5 and same was not binding on
the petitioners herein.
5(ii). It is averred that petitioner was allotted
::: Downloaded on - 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
- 15 - ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
liquor license on 18.03.2023 whereas the partnership
deed was executed on 22.03.2023 [Annexure P-2]
is highly doubtful, when, as per Condition no 2.46
.
of the Excise Announcements, the Collector of the
zone concerned was bound to incorporate the factum
of partnership in the license deed/allotment letter
which was not done. It was averred that petitioners
of
herein, were neither aware of any proceedings nor
any orders having been passed by the department
rt
against the Respondent No 5-Arun Kumar.
In the above backdrop, the petitioners
have assailed the final notice issued by Respondent
No 4- Deputy Commissioner Sales Tax and Excise
Una on 30.11.2023 [Annexure P-1] being Annexure
R-6/1 in connected CWP No 9721 of 2023], with
the prayer to take action against the Respondent
No 5 for having committed illegalities.
6. In Reply to CWP No 115 of 2024,
State Authorities have filed Reply-Affidavit dated
20-3-2024 of Commissioner State Taxes and
Excise Himachal Pradesh, stating that petitioners
have not availed the statutory remedy of appeal
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 16 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
under Section 68 of the HP Excise Act, 2011 against
order/final notice dated 30-11-2023 [Annexure P-1]
passed by Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes &
.
Excise, Una, i.e. the Excise Officer within 30 days
before Collector-cum-Joint Commissioner, State Taxes
& Excise, North Zone, Palampur and therefore the
writ petition was not maintainable.
of
6(i). Reply-Affidavit further states that the
Respondent No 5-Arun Kumar had presented the
rt
partnership deed duly signed by all the partners
in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, State
Taxes & Excise, Una, on 22-3-2023, before the
commencement of business which was carried out
with effect from 01.04.2023 in the name of M/s
Kanda Wines. It is further averred that petitioners
being the partners of M/s Kanda Wine did not
at any point of time object to or brought to the
notice of the authorities that the partnership deed
was illegal and they had not affixed their signatures
on the aforesaid deed. Reply-Affidavit indicates that
reliance placed on Condition No 2.46 of Excise
Announcements was not applicable in the instant
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 17 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
case, as it relates to addition or deletion of partners
during currency of license period. It was averred that
Condition No 2.12 of Excise Announcements 2023-24
.
all the partners of the firm shall be jointly and
severally liable to meet the liabilities. It was averred
that the present petition is an afterthought and
once the petitioners have enjoyed privileges of liquor
of
business from 01.04.2023 to 30.11.2023 for about
eight months but when it came to recovering the
rt
license fee and penalty, then, instant petition was
filed just to deprive the State of its Government
dues.
6(i). In the rejoinder, the petitioners have
reiterated the claim in the writ petition, with the
prayer to allow the writ petition and to quash
the final notice dated 30.11.2023 [Annexure P-1 i.e.
Annexure R-6/1 in connected CWP No 9721 of 2023],
with the prayer for taking action against Private
Respondent No 5 for having committed illegalities.
7. Based on pleadings and in fact-situation
of instant case, [CWP No 9721 0f 2023], following
question arises for determination:
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 18 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
“Whether the petitioner after having
accepted the contract for liquor
business and grant of license can
resile from or wriggle out of the
express contractual obligations and
/or otherwise evade the liability for
.
payment of license fee and penalty
etc., upon cancellation of license ?”
8. Heard, Mr. H.S. Rana & Mr. Amrinder
Singh Rana, Learned Counsel(s) for petitioner and
Mr. Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General with
of
Mr. Sushant Keprate, Learned Additional Advocate
General for the Respondents 1 to 4 in CWP No
rt
1971 of 2023 and vice-versa in the connected
writ petition, CWP No 115 of 2024.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF THE HIMACHAL
PRADESH EXCISE ACT:
9. For appreciating the controversy, it is
necessary to have a recap of the provisions of
Sections 29, 30, 31, 34 71, 72 and 73 of the
Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011, as under:
29. Power to cancel or suspend licenses
etc:
Subject to such restrictions as the State
Government may prescribe, the authority
granting any lease, license, permit or
pass under this Act, may cancel or
suspend it:
(a). if it is transferred or sublet by the holder
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 19 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
thereof without the permission of the said
authority; or
(b) if any excise duty or countervailing
duty or, other fee payable by the holder
thereof is not duly paid; or.
(c) in the event of any breach by the
holder of such lease, license, permit or
pass or by his servants, or by any oneacting on his behalf with his express or
implied permission, of any of the termsof
or conditions of such license, permit
or pass; or
(d) if the holder thereof is convicted of
rt any
Act
offence
or the
punishable
Himachal
under
Pradesh
this
ValueAdded Tax Act, 2005, the Central Sales
Tax Act, 1956 or the Himachal Pradesh
Prevention of Specific Corrupt Practices
Act, 1983 or of any cognizable and non-
bailable offence, or any offence
punishable under the Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, or
under the Trade and Merchandise Marks
Act, 1958 or under the Medicinal and
Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act
1955 or of any offence punishable under
sections 482 to 489 (both inclusive) of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 or any
offence referred to in section 135 of
the Customs Act, 1962; or
(e) where a license, permit or pass has been
granted on the application of the
grantee of a lease under this Act, on
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 20 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the request in writing of such grantee;
or
(f) at will, if the conditions of the license,
permit or pass provides for such
cancellation or suspension.
.
30. Power to cancel any other license
and to recover fee:
(1) When a license, permit or pass held
by any person is cancelled under clauses
(a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 29, the
authority granting the license mayof
cancel any other license, permit or
pass granted to such person by such
rt authority within his jurisdiction but
if such other license, permit or pass
has been granted by any other authority,the Financial Commissioner may cancel
or suspend the same.
(2) In the case of cancellation or suspension
of a license under clauses (a), (b), (c)
or (d) of section 29, the fee payablefor the balance of the period for
which any license would have beencurrent but for such cancellation or
suspension, may be recovered fromthe ex-licensee as excise revenue.
31. No compensation or refund claimable
for cancellation or suspension of
license etc:
When a lease, license, permit or pass
is cancelled or suspended under clauses
(a), (b), (c) or (d) of section 29 or under
section 30, the holder of such lease,::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 21 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
license, permit or pass, as the case
may be, shall not be entitled to any
compensation for its cancellation or
suspension or to the refund of any
fee paid or deposit made in respect.
thereof.”
34. No claim in consequence of refusal
to renew a license etc.:
No person to whom a lease, license,
permit or pass has been granted shall
be entitled to claim any renewal thereofof
and no claim shall lie for damages or
otherwise in consequence of any refusal
rt to renew a lease, license, permit or
pass on the expiry of the period for
which it remains in force.
71. Power to recover license fee etc.:
In the case of cancellation or suspension
of a license under clauses (a), (b), (c),
(d) or (e) of section 29, the license fee
payable for the balance of the periodfor which any license would have been
current but for such cancellation orsuspension, including any other fee,
may be recovered from such licenseeas excise revenue.
72. Power of Collector to take grants
under his management or resell and
recover deficiency.:
If any holder of a license granted
under this Act, or any person to whom
a lease has been granted under section
27, makes default in complying with::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 22 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
any condition imposed upon him by
such license or lease, the Collector may
take the grant under his management
at the risk of the person who has
so defaulted, or may resell it and.
recover any deficiency in price and all
expenses of such resale in the manner
specified in section 73 of this Act.
73. Excise revenue to be first charge
and recoverable as arrears of land
revenue.:
of
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary contained in any law for the
time being in force, any amount of
rt excise revenue including
amounts due to the State Government
all otherunder this Act from any person shall
be the first charge on the property
of such person including the distillery,brewery, winery, warehouse, shop,
premises, fittings, apparatus and all
stocks of liquors or materials formanufacture of the same.
(2) All excise revenue including all
other amounts due to the State
Government under this Act, which remainunpaid after the due date, shall be
recoverable as arrears of land revenue
under the provisions of the Himachal
Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1954.
10. For regulating the sale of liquor and
license fee, penalty and other duties etc leviable
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 23 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
and the mode and manner for recovery thereof
and other provisions therefor, the Respondent-
State has notified Annual Excise Announcements
.
for the year 2023-24 vide Annexure P-4/R-1 and
the relevant conditions applicable for the purposes
of adjudicating these cases read as under:
“CHAPTER-I: INTRODUCTORY
of
1.1 The liquor licenses, shall be granted
subject to the provisions of the Himachal
Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 and the Rules
rt framed thereunder from time to time. A
licensee shall himself be responsiblefor fulfilling any other obligation under
any other law or Rule not specifically
mentioned hereinunder in these terms
and conditions.
1.2 The Commissioner of State Taxes and
Excise-cum-Financial Commissioner ExciseHimachal Pradesh, reserves the right
to sell all or any of the licenses byallotment or by auction or by private
contract or by calling tenders or bydraw of lots or by any other arrangement
(including combination of the foregoing
modes), which he may consider expedient
in the interest of revenue. For this
purpose, the mode of grant of these
licenses may be changed by the
Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise,
whenever necessary before the actual::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 24 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
grant of the license. The Commissioner
of State Taxes and Excise may also
modify the procedure contained in
these terms and conditions to give
effect to such mode of grant of license.
after determining Fixed License Fee, Excise
duties or any other levy, in such
manner as he may deem fit.
1.3 All the allotments of the vends/units
license shall be subject to confirmation
by the Commissioner of State Taxes
of
and Excise-cum-Financial Commissioner
Excise Himachal Pradesh, who reserves
rt the right to reject any allotment without
assigning any reason for doing so.
1.4 All the licensees shall be bound to
comply with all the directions and
orders of the Commissioner of State Taxes
and Excise-cum-Financial Commissioner
(Excise), Himachal Pradesh and all other
Excise Officers, which may be issued
from time to time by them.
CHAPTER-II:
MAIN PROVISIONS FOR AUCTION-
CUM-TENDER OF RETAIL EXCISE VENDS
FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2023-24.
2.1 The following licenses will be granted
/allotted by way of Auction-cum-Tender
process for the year 2023-24 on the
terms and conditions as prescribed in
the succeeding paras:
(i) A license in form L-2 for retail
vend of foreign liquor for sale to::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 25 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the public. The licensee will also
be eligible to sell foreign liquor
in wholesale to the licensees in
form L-3, L-4, L-5, L-3A, L-4A, L-5A,
L-3T, L-4T, L-5T, L-10BB, L-12A,.
L-12B, L-12C etc. for consumption
off the premises.
(ii) A license in form L-14 for retail
vend of country liquor for
consumption on and off the premises.
of
Such licensees are also allowed to
sell foreign liquor in the rural areas.
(iii) A license in form L-14-A for
retail vend of country liquor for
rt consumption off the premises. They
are also allowed to sell foreign
liquor in rural areas.
(iv) A license in form L-20-B for
manufactures and retail sale of
Country Fermented Liquor (Jhol).
2.2 The licenses shall be granted by inviting
bids/tenders for each vend/combination
of vends termed as “Unit”. Applications
will be submitted in accordance with
the procedure prescribed in this chapter.
However, all applicants intending to
participate in the allotment of vends are
required to go through the terms and
conditions and fulfill all the requirements
before submitting the application.
2.3 The District In-charge in consultation
with the Zonal Collector shall also fix
the number and size of the units. The
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 26 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Units size should be such that the
value of the unit shall be preferably
around Rs. 8 Crore. If the condition of
non-viability arises, the District Incharge
in consultation with Zonal Collector
.
may fix any size and value of the
Unit, keeping in view the revenue and
geographical conditions, with the prior
approval of the Commissioner of the
State Taxes and Excise, H.P.
of
2.4 The bid/tender form for allotment shall
be available from the office of any
Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes &
Excise or Asstt. Commissioner of State
rt Taxes & Excise In-charge of the District
or from the office of the Addl./Jt.
Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise
of the Zone, free of cost. The tender
form can also be downloaded from
the website of the Department i.e.
www. hptax.gov.in. In order to ensure
revenue maximization and transparency,
it will be duly publicized through
advertisement in 2 to 3 leading Hindi
and English newspapers.
2.5 The details of location of each retail
vend/unit, reserve price, the minimum
guaranteed quota of liquor fixed for
each vend/unit and other levies as
may be applicable, shall be available
with the Dy CSTE/ACSTE In-charge of
the District who shall display the same
on the office notice board for the
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 27 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
information of the intending tenderers/
bidders one day before the first day
fixed for the receipt of the tenders.
2.6 …not relevant…
.
2.7 The bids/tenders for the allotment can
be submitted by the following:
(a) an individual; or
(b) a body incorporated under the Indian
Companies Act; or
(c) a society registered under the
Himachal Pradesh Co-operative
of
Societies Act; or
(d) a partnership firm; or
(e) a Hindu undivided family.
rt
2.8 When a Company or Society or Partnership
firm or Hindu undivided family referred
to in clauses (b), (c) (d) and (e) of
para 7 above, applies for the allotment
of a vend/unit, it must authorize an
individual to act as an agent on behalf
of the applicant, who shall be amenable
in full to the Criminal Courts in
India.
2.9 An individual applicant should fulfill
the following conditions to be eligible
to submit bid/tender:-
(i) He/She should be a citizen of India.
(ii). He/She should have attained the
age of 21 years on the day of
bid/tender.
(ii) He/She should not have been
blacklisted or debarred from holding
an excise license under the provisions::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 28 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
of any Rules made under the Punjab
Excise Act 1914, as applicable in
the State of Himachal Pradesh/
the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act,
2011. Any person, who has been.
convicted of any excise offence by
any court of law unless finally
acquitted, shall be automatically
debarred from holding the license.
(iv) He /She should not be a defaulter
of
of any Government dues and should
have cleared all the arrears, if
any, due to be paid by him upto
rt the date of filing of application for
allotment.
(v) He/She should possess good moral
character and should have no
criminal back ground nor should
have been convicted of any offence
punishable under any taxation
statute in Himachal Pradesh.
2.10 The conditions of eligibility mentioned
in para 9 above shall apply to all
the partners in case of a partnership
firm, every member of any other
association of persons mentioned in
Para 7 above, Karta of a Hindu undivided
family and every individual acting
as an agent on behalf of the applicant
in other cases.
2.11 The applicant must fulfill the following
conditions:
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
- 29 - ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
(i). He should be solvent and should
have the necessary funds or should
have made arrangements for the
necessary funds, for conducting the
business the details of which shall
.
be made available to the licensing
authority, if required and the
value of the assets held by him
as declared in Form ‘A’ attached
to the application form should be
at least 25% of the annual License
of
Fee of the vend/unit for which
the application is filed.
(ii).
rt He will establish the liquor vend
in the premises which may be
provided by local bodies subject to
the approval of the Department
failing which he should possess or
should have an arrangement for
taking on rent suitable premises in
the specified locality for opening
the shop in accordance with the
provisions of Himachal Pradesh
Liquor License Rules, 1986 and
that the proposed premises should
not have been constructed in
violation of any law or Rules.
(iii). He should agree not to employ any
salesman or representative who has
criminal background as mentioned
in clause (v) of point No 9 above
or who suffers from any infectious
or contagious disease or is below
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 30 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
21 years of age.
2.12 All the partners of a firm shall be
jointly and severally liable to meet
the liabilities.
.
2.13 Every tender for the allotment of vend
/unit shall be made in the prescribed
format. A non-refundable bid/tender fee
shall be deposited by every person who
wishes to participate in the bid process
or file tender. The bid/tender fee may
of
be paid in cash or through Bank
Draft at the time of entry into the
Auction-cum-Tender hall. An applicant
rt can submit as many tenders as he
wants but each such tender must be
accompanied by the prescribed tender
fee. The tender will be submitted to the
Dy. CSTE/ACSTE. In charge of the
concerned district within which the vend
/unit is situated. A non-refundable tender
fee shall be as under:
Sr. Type of license Tender Fee
No
1. L-2/L-14/L-14A Rs.1,00,000/-
2. Country Rs.20,000/-
Fermented Liquor
2.18 The allotment of Units/vends through
Auction-cum-Tender shall be made by
the District Allotment Committee. The
District Allotment Committee shall consist
of the Deputy Commissioner of the
concerned District Collector (Excise) of
the Zone, Dy. Commissioner of State
Taxes & Excise /Asstt. Commissioner of
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 31 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
State Taxes & Excise in-charge of the
district and any other gazetted officer
of the Department nominated by the
Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise.
In case the Deputy Commissioner of
.
the District is not available due to
unavoidable circumstances, then the ADC
or ADM of the concerned District shall
form part of the District Allotment
Committee. The chairman of the Committee
will be Deputy Commissioner/ADC/ADM
of
as the case may be.
2.24 If any person who has been allotted
rt vend /unit fails to make deposit of
the amount of license fee/security or
on confirmation of the allotment refuses
to accept the license, the license may
be resold by any prescribed arrangement
and such allottee shall not be entitled
for refund of any amount he has
deposited or shall not be entitled to
any other claim. Such defaulting allottee
shall further be liable to make up
the loss of revenue to the government
and will be recoverable from him as
arrear of Land Revenue.
2.28 The successful allottee shall also be
required to pay 10% of the MVV in
case of draw of lots whereas in case
of Auction-cum-Tender, the allottee shall
be required to pay 10% of the Bid/
Tender offered by him as advance fixed
license fee through a Demand Draft
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 32 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
drawn on a Scheduled Commercial Banks
of India as per the schedule below.
This demand draft shall be deposited
by the concerned District In-charge
latest by 5th April, 2023 after proper
.
verification. This amount shall be
adjustable against the monthly license
fee payable on lifting of liquor to the
extent of @ 6% in the Month of April,
2023 and the balance amount @ 4%
in the last month of the financial year
of
i.e. March, 2024.
Stage Percentage of
rt amount to be
deposited out
of the 10%
advance fixed
license fees
1 At the time of 50%
application for
allotment of the unit
2 Within 3 days of 25%
allotment of the unit
3 Within 6 days of 25%
allotment of the unit or
31 st March, 2023
whichever is earlier
The licensee shall be allowed to operate
the liquor vends only if the complete
advanced fixed license fees above is
deposited as prescribed above. In case
of failure to deposit the entire advanced
fixed license fee, the allotment of vends
/units shall be cancelled immediately
by the Collector of the Zone concerned
and the same shall be put up for re-
allotment. Any advance amount deposited
by such licensee shall be forfeited.
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
- 33 - ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
2.30 All bidders intending to participate in
Auction-cum-Tender process of allotment
are also expected to go through the
Bid/Tender Document and submit the
relevant forms, i.e. form A, form B
.
and form in Annexure A, before
participating in the Auction-cum-Tender.
2.31 Every intending bidder in the Auction-
cum-Tender shall bring along with him
Eligibility Claim as defined in the
of
Tender process mentioned in forgoing
paras. If eligibility claim of a bidder
is found to be defective the same shall
rt be rejected with reasons to be recorded
in writing.
2.32 The Auction-cum-Tender shall be
conducted for each unit separately. The
Tenders shall be opened for each unit
after the completion of bidding process
is over and no more bids are forthcoming.
However, the Presiding Officer may in
very rare circumstances and with the
approval of the Financial Commissioner
(Excise), auction more than one unit
or whole of the district together.
Only in the case of an eventuality
when an entire district is intended to
be put to auction, the Presiding Officer
will give the intending bidders an
opportunity to also file a tender for
the whole district as well at this stage.
However, the Auction-cum-Tender process
for the whole district shall be resorted
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 34 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
to only once the Auction-cum-Tender
process of each unit or more than one
unit has been exhausted keeping in
view the interest of Government revenue.
The Financial Commissioner (Excise) may
.
reject any grouping done by the Presiding
Officer.
2.40 If the highest bid or bids in respect
of any vend or unit received by the
Presiding Officer at the Auction/tender
are approved and confirmed by the
of
Financial Commissioner (Excise), the
deposit of advance license fee made by
rt the concerned bidder shall be counted
towards the License Fee approved in
respect of the concerned vend or vends,
and adjusted as prescribed and the
remaining amount of License Fee shall
be paid by the licensee.
2.41 While allotting the retail vends L-2/
L-14/L-14A by auction-cum-tender, the
Committee constituted for this purpose
shall have the final authority to
debar any such applicants whom the
members of the Committee find out
to be immediate family members of
the defaulting licensees (whether current
or old defaulter) from allotment of retail
vends even if he/she is the highest
bidder/successful allottee. The committee
shall pass a speaking order in the
matter and convey the same immediately
to the Commissioner of State Taxes and
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 35 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Excise, H.P. for approval. The concerned
District Incharge shall submit a certificate
to the Commissioner of State Taxes
and Excise, H.P. that no defaulter or
his immediate family members have
.
been permitted for allotment of excise
units in his jurisdiction. The disqualified
applicant/bidder in such cases shall
have no right to appeal to the higher
authority.
2.42 The annual license fee (as per bid
of
/tender offered) shall be divided into
twelve installments so that the entire
rtlicense fee is cleared by 15 th March
of the financial year. The license fee
payable for a particular month shall
be deposited into the government
treasury by the 7 th day of the subsequent
month failing which the concerned
District Incharge shall send the report
to Zonal In-charge concerned within
three days.
The Zonal In-charge shall cancel the
license of vend/unit within three days
positively in case the licensee fails to
deposit the monthly license fee and the
advance amount deposited shall be
forfeited.
However, if the licensee deposits monthly
license fee, the cancellation proceedings
in respect of defaulting unit/vend
may be dropped by the Zonal In-charge
by imposing a maximum penalty of
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 36 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Rs 1,00,000/- and the licensee shall
be allowed to continue the operations.
The entire process to be concluded
by the Collector In-charge within three
days.
.
2.47 In the event of death of a sole proprietor
or any other case, the Collector (Excise)
may allow the legal heir(s) to continue
the license for the remaining period,
provided that the legal heir(s) are
of
otherwise eligible to hold the license.
2.48 If a license is held by a partnership
firm, in the event of death of a partner,
rt the survivor(s) and the legal heir(s) of
the deceased or in the eventuality of
death of all the partners, their legal
heir(s), if otherwise eligible, may be
allowed by the Collector (Excise) to hold
the license for the remaining period
of the financial year.
2.49 to 3.32 …not relevant…..”
CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER IN CWP NO
9721 of 2023:
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has
assailed Impugned Orders, passed by Respondent
no 3-Collector (Excise)-cum-Joint Commissioner
of State Taxes and Excise (North Zone) Palampur
on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2] cancelling the liquor
license of the petitioner under Section 29 of
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 37 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011 for non-
remission of license fee for the period in question
and orders passed by Respondent No 1-Financial
.
Commissioner (Excise)-cum-Appellate Authority on
22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1], dismissing the appeal
under Section 68 (2) of the Act; on the grounds,
that firstly, the Impugned Orders passed by the
of
State Authorities without complying with principles
of natural justice was illegal and unsustainable;
rt
and secondly, the action of the State Authorities
in passing the impugned orders ignoring that
the petitioner has suffered loss in business due
to natural calamities and lesser liquor rates in
the bordering State of Punjab; and thirdly, the
action of the State Authorities in freezing bank
account of the petitioner on 17.11.2023 before
passing Impugned Orders despite the readiness
and willingness of the petitioner to remit the
pending license fee was illegal; and fourthly,
the State Authorities could not discriminate the
petitioner by cancelling his liquor license whereas
no action was taken against other defaulters;
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
- 38 - ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
and fifthly, the action of the Respondents in
re-auctioning the vends to the Respondent No 5
by a backdoor procedure on the basis of fake
.
documents submitted by the said respondent was
illegal; and lastly, Condition no 2.42 of Annual
Excise Announcements for 2023-2024 [Annexure P-4]
was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional.
of
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONER
IN CWP NO 9721 of 2023:
12. Now, this Court proceeds to analyze the
rt
contentions of Learned Counsel for the petitionerhereinunder:
PLEA THAT IMPUGNED ORDER CANCELLING
LICENSE WAS PASSED WITHOUT HEARINGMISCONCEIVED:
13. First contention of Learned Counsel for
petitioner is that the Impugned Order cancelling
the liquor license of the petitioner on 18.11.2023
[Annexure P-2], without affording an opportunity
of hearing was punitive and violative of principles
of natural justice.
The above plea is factually incorrect,
misleading and is misconceived in view of the
stand taken by the State Authorities in the Reply
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 39 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
-Affidavit, reads as under:
7. That the contents of this para are
absolutely wrong and hence denied.
The Petitioner was afforded adequate
.
opportunity for the payment of pending
license fees for the month of September.
Repeated notices were sent to the
Petitioner by Respondent No.4 for
depositing the pending amount due but
is of no avail despite giving reasonable
of
opportunities failing on account of which
a report was submitted to Respondent
No. 3 vide his office letter No EXN-Una-
Excise-2023-24-11862 dated 08.11.2023
rt pointing out that the Petitioner/licensee
has erred in the payment of license
fees for the month of September, 2023
rendering him liable for action under
Section 29 & 43 of the H.P Excise Act,
2011 read with condition No 2.42 of the
Excise Announcements 2023-24.
It is further submitted that a notice was
served upon the licensee by Respondent
No. 3 on 09.11.2023 wherein opportunity
of being heard was afforded to him.
The Petitioner/licensee was directed to
produce the proof of payment of balance
license fee on or before 13.11.2023. Again
notice was issued in this regard on
13.11.2023 through Respondent No 4 for
appearance on 14.11.2023. However, the
Petitioner/licensee did not appear for
reasons best know to him. Resultantly,
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 40 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
case was taken up on 15.11.2023
when the Petitioner/licensee intimated
that only an amount of Rs 2,00,000/-
has been deposited. Last opportunity
was granted to the licensee to deposit
.
the remaining dues by 16.11.2023.
However, the Petitioner/licensee failed to
clear the dues for the month of September
2023. Consequently, the license of the
Petitioner was cancelled by Respondent
No3 well-reasoned order dated 18.11.2023
of
(Annexure P-2). Thereafter, the petitioner
/licensee filed an appeal u/s 68(2)
rt of the H.P Excise Act, 2011 before the
Respondent No.2 on 20.11.2023. On the
request of the Petitioner the matter was
listed for hearing on the date of institution
itself i.e. 20.11.2023. The Petitioner
was given an ample opportunity to clear
the outstanding pending amount due
for the months of September as well
as of October, 2023 as per the explicit
provisions laid down therefor in condition
No. 2.42 of the H.P Excise Announcements
2023-24. However, despite numerous
reminders no deposit was made by the
Petitioner/licensee reasons best known
to him and the appeal was dismissed
by Respondent No. 2 after affording due
and ample opportunities to the Petitioner
/licensee to put forth his contention but
is of no avail.
12. That the contents of this para are
wrong hence denied. It is submitted that
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 41 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the case of the Petitioner was heard
by Respondent No. 3 on dated 09.11.2023,
10.11.2023, 15.11.2023, 16.11.2023 and
finally on 18.11.2023. Subsequently, an
order of cancellation of license was
.
passed by Respondent No 3 after hearing
the Petitioner at length and giving
sufficient time to deposit the dues hence
the well-reasoned order passed by the
Respondent No.3 is sustainable in the
eyes of law for all intents and purposes.
of
There is iota of doubt to draw adverse
inference while passing the aforesaid
rt order as per law.”
13(i-a). Besides the stand in the Reply Affidavit,
a reference is made to Final Notice issued on
17.11.2023 [Annexure P-3] by the Respondent No
3-Collector (Excise)-cum-Joint Commissioner Sales
Tax and Excise Palampur (HP) under Section 29
of H P Excise Act, 2011, directing him to deposit
/remit the license fee for September 2023, in
following terms:
And whereas, in view of the above, the
said licensee has become liable for action
under Commissioner of State Taxes &
Excise, Una, District Una read with
condition no 2.42 of the Annual Excise
Announcements 2023-24 and notices were
issued to you for appearance/ present::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 42 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
your cause/ deposit pending license fee
for the said month, and due opportunity
was afforded to you on 09.11.2023,
14.11.2023 and 15.11.2023.
.
Whereas you have ample opportunity to
appear and deposition of license fee for
the month of September, 2023 and you
have miserably failed to deposit the
same and an amount of license fee
Rs.45,85,881 is still pending on the
of
part of you for the said month. At the
same time you have not put any forth
any sufficient reasons for the failure of
deposition of the pending license fee for
rt the month of September, 2023.”
13(i-b). Perusal of the Impugned order passed
by Collector-cum-Joint Commissioner on 18.11.2023,
Annexure P-2, negates the plea of the petitioner
in view of the fact that petitioner was directed
to appear before the Authorities on 09.11.2023
for 13.11.2023 and another notice was issued on
13.11.2023 directing him to appear on 14.11.2023
and then another notice was issued directing him
to appear on 16.11.2023 as an amount of Rs
45,85,881/-was due and on said date, petitioner
deposited an amount of Rs 2,00,000/ and he
was directed to deposit the remaining amount
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 43 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
on 16.11.2023 but despite this, the petitioner did
not deposit the balance amount and for this
persistent default, a Final Notice was issued on
.
17.11.2023 vide Annexure P-4, by directing him
to deposit the balance amount before 18.11.2023
(morning) and to remit the proof of deposit of
license fee. Material on record reveals that the
of
petitioner was heard by the Respondent No 3
on several occasions on 09.11.2023, 10.11.2023,
rt
15.11.2023, 16.11.2023 and finally on 18.11.2023
but for the non-remission/non-deposit of license
fee, the Respondent No 3-Collector (Excise)-cum-
Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise
Palampur (HP) passed an order on 18.11.2023
[Annexure P-2], cancelling the license of petitioner
after issuing notices and after having afforded
an opportunity of personal hearing and after giving
sufficient time to deposit the dues.
13(i-c). Feeling aggrieved against the order
cancelling the license, the petitioner filed an
appeal under Section 68 (2) of the Himachal
Pradesh Excise Act before Financial Commissioner
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 44 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
(Excise) vide Appeal No.8 of 2023 and Appellate
Authority gave two opportunities on 21.11.2023
and on next day i.e. 22.11.2023, but for non-
.
deposit of license-fee the appeal was dismissed,
in following terms:-
The matter was accordingly ordered to
be listed on the next day i.e. 21.11.2023
at 12:00 noon. The appellant on 21.11.2023of
submitted that it can only deposit `ten
lakh today. One more opportunity was
granted to the appellant and was directed
rt to
for
deposit
the
half
month
of
of
the pending
September, 2023
license
onthat day itself i.e. 21.11.2023 by 03:00
PM and the remaining half on the next
day i.e. 22.11.2023 by 11:00 AM. However,
the appellant expressed its inability todeposit the concerned amount on both
the dates.”
Based on the material on record, it is
established that despite issuance of notices and
affording personal hearings and grant of several
opportunities to deposit-remit the license-fee, the
failure to deposit-remit the payable amount has
led to passing of Impugned Order on 18.11.2023
[Annexure P-2] by the Respondent No 3-Collector
(Excise)-cum-Joint Commissioner Sales Tax and
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 45 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Excise Palampur (HP) cancelling the liquor license
of the petitioner is inaccordance with law. Even
during pendency of appeal, the Appellate Authority
.
gave two opportunities to deposit the license fee
and since the petitioner expressed his inability
to deposit-remit the license fee, therefore, the
appeal was dismissed on 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1]
of
inaccordance with law. Nothing has been placedon record with the writ petition or in rejoinder
to assert
rt and establish that the notices werenot issued/served or that the personal hearings
were not afforded by the State Authorities negates
the plea of the petitioner.
In above backdrop, the Impugned Order
passed on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2] cancelling
the liquor license for failure to deposit-remit the
license-fee and the orders dismissing the appeal
on 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1], passed after due
compliance of the principles of natural justice
by issuing notices and after affording personal
hearing(s) giving ample opportunities to petitioner
to deposit-remit the unpaid license fee but upon
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 46 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
failure to the deposit-remit the license fee, the
impugned order passed by the Collector (Excise),
which was also upheld by the Appellate Authority.
.
Accordingly, the plea of Learned Counsel for the
petitioner that Impugned Orders are punitive and
violative of the principles of natural justice is
misconceived and therefore, the Impugned Orders
of
do not suffer from the vice of perversity, infirmityor illegality.
rtPETITIONER HAVING ACCEPTED TERMS OF
CONTRACT CANNOT WRIGGLE OUT:
14. Second contention of Learned Counsel
contented that non-deposit of license fee was due
to recission in business suffered on account
of natural calamity in July 2023 and also the
lesser rate of liquor in bordering/adjoining areas
in the State of Punjab and the Impugned Orders
cancelling the license on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2]
and in dismissing the appeal of the petitioner
on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2], by ignoring these
aspects reveals unreasonableness, unfairness and
arbitrariness in State action.
The above contention cannot sustain on
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 47 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
facts as well as law, in view of the discussion
made in succeeding paras :-
A. SANCTITY OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF
CONTRACT IN LIQUOR TRADE:
.
14(i-a). The plea is misconceived, for the reason,
that firstly, once the State Authorities decided
to auction the liquor trade by inviting bids and
petitioner participated in auction and voluntarily
of
offered his bid with open eyes, for grant oflicense and
rt acceptance of his bid culminatedinto a contract then, the contractual obligations
arising from contract were binding; and secondly,
after having participated in the auction and
the acceptance of bid and grant of license, the
petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions
under HP Excise Act, HP Liquor License Rules
and the Excise Announcements for the year
2023-2024, including the mode and manner of
depositing-remitting the license fee as prescribed
therein; and thirdly, mutual rights and liabilities
of parties were to be governed by the terms and
conditions of contract (license) and the law; and
fourthly, the petitioner after having freely and
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 48 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
voluntarily participated in an auction and having
been granted license by State Authorities cannot
invoke the doctrine of fairness and reasonableness
.
against another contracting party (i.e. the State
in the instant case) for purpose of altering or
adding to the terms and conditions of contract
or license after its acceptance; and fifthly, once
of
the petitioner had taken advantages, benefits andprofits from the contract (grant of license) then,
rt
in the event of losses, the petitioner is boundto fulfil its obligations by depositing-remitting
the license fee and failure to deposit-remit license
fee shall estop the petitioner from challenging
orders for recovery of license fee; and sixthly,
the petitioner has no right to invoke and plead
waiver or non-deposit of license fee due to loss
-recission in business, for the reason that in
cases of contracts entered freely and voluntarily,
the State Authorities does not guarantees profit
to licensee nor does it encompasses warranty
against incurring losses and earning of profit
or incurring loss is not the concern of the State
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 49 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Authorities; and seventhly, after having accepted
the contract as a whole (and grant of license
voluntary and free will in open auction), then,
.
the petitioner cannot accept beneficial part of
contract while abandoning that part which may
turn out to be not favorable or not suitable.
The petitioner cannot blow hot and cold and
of
the principle of approbation and reprobation andthe doctrine of election disentitles the petitioner
rt
from claiming exemption, immunity or to waiveoff the license fee; eighthly, in matters relating
to commercial contracts, as in this case, petitioner
has no right to invoke doctrine of unconscionable
bargaining is not attracted and is inapplicable;
and ninthly, after having accepted the terms and
conditions of contract, the petitioner had no right
to wriggle out of contractual obligations and the
hardships or difficulties in enforceability of contract
or terms being onerous cannot be a ground
for claiming non-performance or non-remission of
license fee, becoming due and payable under the
terms and conditions, which were duly accepted
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 50 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
by the petitioner; tenthly, even the events which
were not relatable to the terms and conditions
of contract will not entitle a party for petitioner
.
for pleading non-performance by not depositing
or not remitting the license fee payable by the
petitioner to the State Authorities, when, State
Authorities had placed all its cards on the table
of
{i.e. terms and conditions of contract, containedin bid document, in terms of Chapter-II and Clause
2.4 of
rt
the Excise Announcements for the year2023-2024, (Annexure R-2) and petitioner having
knowledge of same, voluntarily and of his free
will chose to offer his bid with open eyes, which
was duly accepted, then after acceptance of bid
and grant of license, the petitioner-licensee has
no right to assail the orders cancelling the
liquor license under Section 29 of the HP Excise
Act, for failure to deposit-remit the license fee.
In these circumstances, the non-performance or
non-enforceability of contractual conditions due to
loss in business or due to events not expressly
covered by the terms and conditions of contract
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 51 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
do not confer a legally enforceable and tenable
ground to seek indulgence under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. It is beyond the purview
.
of the Court to adopt a convenient methodology
by resorting to a liberal approach so as to rewrite
the contract either by substituting the existing
conditions or by carving out new terms outside
of
the express terms and conditions of the contract-
license and the petitioner-licensee herein, cannot
be
rt
permitted to dilute the sanctity of contract
or to wriggle out of the contractual obligations
including liabilities (payment of license fee etc.),
for the period in issue, as referred to above.
MANDATE OF LAW: TERMS OF CONTRACT
CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BE WRIGGLED
OUT:
14(i-b). While dealing with contractual obligations
in liquor business between the State and licensee
who had offered the bid with open eyes, which
was duly accepted then, the terms and conditions
of contract cannot be wriggled out or contractual
obligations cannot be impeached by a licensee
by giving a go-bye to the terms and conditions
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 52 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
of contract were binding inter-se the parties,
as mandated by the Constitutional Bench of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Har Shankar
.
and others vs The Deputy Excise and Taxation
Commissioner and others, (1975) 1 SCC 737, in
following terms:-
16. Those interested in running the country
of
liquor vends offered their bids voluntarily
in the auctions held for granting
licences for the sale; of country liquor.
rt The terms and conditions of auctions
were announced before the auctions
were held and the bidders participated
in the auctions without a demur and
with full knowledge of the commitments
which the bids involved. The announcement
of conditions governing the auctions
were in the nature of an invitation to
an offer to those who were interested
in the sale of country liquor. The bids
given in the auctions were offers made by
prospective vendors to the Government.
The Government’s acceptance of those
bids was the acceptance of willing offers
made to it. On such acceptance, the
contract between the bidders and the
Government became concluded and a
binding agreement came into existence
between them. The successful bidders
were then granted licenses evidencing
the terms of contract between them
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 53 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
and the Government, under which they
became entitled to, sell liquor. The
licensees exploited the respective licences
for a portion of the period of their
currency, presumably in expectation of
.
a profit. Commercial considerations may
have revealed an error of judgment
in the initial assessment of profitability
of the adventure but that is a normal
incident of the trading transactions.
Those who contract with open eyes
of
must accept the burdens of the
contract along with its benefits. The
rt powers of the Financial-Commissioner
to grant liquor licensees by auction
and to collect license fees through the
medium of auctions cannot by writ
petitions be, questioned by those who,
had their venture succeeded, would
have relied upon those very powers to
found a legal claim. Reciprocal rights
and obligations arising out of contract
do not depend for their enforceability
upon whether a contracting party
finds it prudent to abide by the
terms of the contract. By such a
test no contract could ever have a
binding force.
21. On the preliminary objection it was
fin-ally urged by the appellants that
the objection was misconceived because
there was, in fact, no contract between
the parties and therefore they were not
attempting to enforce any contractual
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 54 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
rights or to wriggle out of contractual
obligations. The short answer to this
contention is that the bids given by
the appellants constitute offers and
upon their acceptance by the Government
.
a binding agreement came into existence
between the parties. The conditions
of auction become the terms of the
contract and it is on those terms that
licenses are granted to the successful
bidders in Form L. 14-A of the Rules.
of
As stated in Chesbire and Fifoot’s ‘Law
of Contract’ (Eighth Ed., 1972; P. 24),
rt “In order to determine whether, in
any given case, it is reasonable
to infer the existence of an
agreement, it has long been usual
to employ the language of offer
and acceptance. in other words,
the court examines all the
circumstances to see if the one
party may be assumed to have
made a firm, offer” and if the
other may likewise be taken to
have ‘accepted” that offer. These
complementary ideas present a
convenient method of analysing
a situation, provided that they
are not applied too literally and
that facts are not sacrificed to
phrases.”
Analysing the situation here, a
concluded contract must be held to
have come into existence between the
parties. The appellants have displayed
ingenuity in their search for invalidating
circumstances but a writ petition is
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 55 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
not an appropriate remedy for impeaching
contractual obligations.”
CONTRACTUAL CANNOT BE RESILED ON
PLEA OF CONDITION BEING INCONVENIENT
ONEROUS OR BEING HARSH :
.
14(i-c). Plea of liquor-licensee that the terms
of contract prescribing the mode of payment of
license fee and consequences thereof were onerous
or that conditions of license led to inconvenient
of
consequences or were harsh was repelled bythe Three-Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court,
rt
in case of Panna Lal and others vs State ofRajasthan and others, (1975) 2 SCC 633, in
following terms:
20. The license fee stipulated to be paid
by the appellants is the price or
consideration or rental which theGovernment charges from the licensees
for parting with its privilege in stipulated
lump sum payment and is a normal
incident of a trading or businesstransaction. This Court in the recent
decision in Nashirwar and Ors vs State
of Madhya Pradesh and ors and in
the unreported decision Hari Shanker
vs Deputy Excise and Taxation
Commissioner held that the State has
exclusive right to manufacture and
sell liquor and to sell the said right::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 56 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
in order to raise revenue. The nature
of the trade is such that the State
confers the right to vend liquor
by farming out either by auction or
by private treaty. Rental is the.
consideration for the privilege granted
by the Government for manufacturing
or vending liquor. Rental is neither a
tax nor an excise duty. Rental is
the consideration for the agreement
for grant of privilege by the Government.
of
21. The licences in the present case are
contracts between the parties. The
licensees voluntarily accepted the
rt contracts. They fully exploited to their
advantage the contracts to the exclusion
of others. The High Court rightly said
that it was not open to the appellants
to resile from the contracts on the
ground that the terms of payment
were onerous. The reasons given by
the High Court were that the licensees
accepted the licence by excluding their
competitors and it would not be open
to the licences to challenge the terms
either on the ground of inconvenient
consequence of terms or of harshness
of terms.”
COMMERCIAL DIFFICULTY-HARDSHIP CANNOT
BE INVOKED WHEN TERMS ACCEPTED WITH
OPEN EYES:
14(i-d). Plea by a liquor-licensee that terms
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 57 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
and conditions of contract had caused commercial
difficulty or inconvenience or hardship etc., in
performance cannot be a justification for not
.
complying with the terms of contract which were
accepted with open eyes, as mandated by the
Three Judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Haryana and others versus Jageram
of
and others, (1980) 3 SCC 599, in following terms:
16. The Writ Petitions filed by the
rt respondents in the High Court in the
instant case are open precisely to the
same objection which was upheld bythis Court in Har Shankar (supra). They
entered into a contract with the State
authorities with the full knowledgeof conditions which they had to carry
out in the conduct of their business,
on which they had willingly andvoluntarily embarked. The occurrence of
a commercial difficulty inconvenience
or hardship in the performance of
those conditions, like the sale ofliquor being less in summer than in
winter, can provide no justification
for not complying with the terms of
the contract which they had accepted
with open eyes. The respondents could
not therefore invoke the writ jurisdiction
of the High Court to avoid the contractual::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 58 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
obligation incurred by them voluntarily.
On this ground alone, the State is
entitled to succeed in this appeal.”
UNFAVOURABLE CONDITIONS & UNEXPECTED
DEVELOPMENTS NOT A GROUND TO WRIGGLE
.
OUT OF THE CONCTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS:
14(i-e). Plea of a licensee in liquor business
to relieve him of the obligations arising under
contract due to unexpected developments and
of
other unfavourable conditions causing loss cannotbe a ground to allow such licensee to wriggle
rt
out contractual obligations and the duty to actfairly cannot be invoked so as to modify or alter
express conditions of a contact or to create an
obligation upon the State which do not exist in
the contract, has outlined by the Three-Judges
of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others
vs Issac Peter and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 104,
in following terms :
23. Maybe these are cases where the
licensees took a calculated risk. May
be they were not wise in offering their
bids. But in law there is no basis
upon which they can be relieved of
the obligations undertaken by them::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 59 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
under the contract. It is well known
that in such contracts which may
be called executory contracts there is
always an element of risk. Many an
unexpected development may occur which.
may either cause loss to the contractor
or result in large profit. Take the very
case of arrack contractors. In one year,
there may be abundance of supplies
accompanied by good crops induced
by favorable weather conditions; the
of
contractor will make substantial profits
during the year. In another year, the
rt conditions may be unfavourable and
supplies scarce. He may incur loss.
Such contracts do not imply a warranty
or a guarantee of profit to the
contractor. It is a business for him
profit and loss being normal incidents
of a business. There is no room
for invoking the doctrine of unjust
enrichment in such a situation. The
said doctrine has never been invoked
in such business transactions. The
remedy provided by Article 226 or
for that matter, suits, cannot be
resorted to wriggle out of the
contractual obligations entered into
by the licensees.
26. Learned counsel for respondents then
submitted that doctrine of fairness and
reasonableness must be read into
contracts to which State is a party.
It is submitted that the State cannot
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 60 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
act unreasonably or unfairly even while
acting under a contract involving State
power. Now, let us see, what is the
purpose for which this argument is
addressed and what is the implication?
.
The purpose, as we can see, is
that though the contract says that
supply of additional quota is
discretionary, it must be read as
obligatory at least to the extent of
previous year's supplies by applying
of
the said doctrine. It is submitted that
if this is not done, the licensees would
suffer
rt monetarily. The other purpose
is to say that if the State is not able
to so supply, it would be unreasonable
on its part to demand the full amount
due to it under the contract. In short,
the duty to act fairly is sought to
be imported into the contract to
modify and alter its terms and to
create an obligation upon the State
which is not there in the contract.
We must confess, we are not aware
of any such doctrine of fairness
or reasonableness. Nor could the learned
counsel bring to our notice any decision
laying down such a proposition. Doctrine
of fairness or the duty to act fairly
and reasonably is a doctrine developed
in the administrative law field to ensure
the rule of law and to prevent failure
of justice where the action is
administrative in nature. Just as
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 61 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
principles of natural justice ensure fair
decision where the function is quasi-
judicial, the doctrine of fairness is
evolved to ensure fair action where
the function is administrative. But
.
it can certainly not be invoked to
amend, alter or vary the express
terms of the contract between the
parties. This is so, even if the contract
is governed by statutory provisions,
i.e., where it is a statutory contract
of
or rather more so. It is one thing to
say that a contract every contract
must
rt be construed reasonably having
regard to its language. But this is
not what the licensees say. They seek
to create an obligation on the other
party to the contract, just because
it happens to be the State. They are
not prepared to apply the very same
rule in converse case, i.e., where the
State has abundant supplies and
wants the licensees to lift all the
stocks. The licensees will undertake
no obligation to lift all those stocks
even if the State suffers loss. This
one-sided obligation, in modification
of express terms of the contract, in
the name of duty to act fairly, is
what we are unable to appreciate.
The decisions cited by the learned counsel
for the licensees do not support their
proposition. In Dwarkadas Marfatia vs
Board of Trustees of the Port of
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 62 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Bombay it Was held that where a public
authority is exempted from the operation
of a statute like Rent Control Act, it
must be presumed that such exemption
from the statute is coupled with the
.
duty to act fairly and reasonably. The
decision does not say that the terms
and conditions of contract can be varied,
added or altered by importing the
said doctrine. It may be noted that
though the said principle was affirmed,
of
no relief was given to the appellant in
that case. Shrilekha Vidyarthi vs State
of U.P. was a case of mass termination
rt
of District (Government Counsel in
the State of U.P. It was a case of
termination from a post involving public
element. It was a case of non-government
servant holding a public office, on
account of which it was held to be
a matter within the public law field.
This decision too does not affirm the
principle now canvassed by the learned
counsel. We are, therefore, of the opinion
that in case of contracts freely entered
into with the State, like the present
ones, there is no room for invoking the
doctrine of fairness and reasonableness
against one party to the contract
(State), for the purpose of altering
or adding to the terms and conditions
of the contract, merely because it
happens to be the State. In such cases,
the mutual rights and liabilities of
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 63 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the parties are governed by the terms
of the contracts (which may be statutory
in some cases) and the laws relating
to contracts. It must be remembered
that these contracts are entered into
.
pursuant to public auction, floating
of tenders or by negotiation. There
is no compulsion on anyone to enter
into these contracts. It is voluntary
on both sides. There can be no question
of the State power being involved in
of
such contracts. It bears repetition to
say that the State does not guarantee
profit to the licensees in such contracts.
rt
There is no warranty against incurring
losses. It is a business for the
licensees. Whether they make profit
or incur loss is no concern of the
State. In law, it is entitled to its
money under the contract. It is not
as if the licensees are going to pay
more to the State in case they make
substantial profits. We reiterate that
what we have said hereinabove is
in the context of contracts entered
into between the State and its citizens
pursuant to public auction, floating
of tenders or by negotiation. It is not
necessary to say more than this for
the purpose of these cases. What would
be the position in the case of
contracts entered into otherwise than
by public auction, floating of tenders
or negotiation, we need not express
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 64 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
any opinion herein.”
PETITIONER CANNOT TURN AROUND
AND ASSAIL CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT
AFTER ACCEPANCE:
14(i-f). While negating the claim of a licensee
.
in liquor business, who had failed to deposit
license fee but had filed a writ petition, seeking
deferment or enlargement of time for payment of
of
license fee was repelled by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in case of State of Orissa & Others vs
Narain
rt Prasad and Others, (1996) 5 SCC 740,by mandating that after accepting the terms and
conditions of contract and upon commencement
of work, such person-licensee cannot be permitted
to turn around, pleading non-performance by
invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the
High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, in the following terms:
21. The approach adopted in this decision
has to be borne in mind in every
such case. It is also to be kept mind
that while the decisions referred to
hereinbefore are by smaller Benches,
this decision is by a Constitution Bench.
A person who enters into certain
contractual obligations with his eyes
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 65 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
open and works the entire contract,
cannot be allowed to turn round,
according to this decision, and question
the validity of those obligations of the
Rules which constitute the terms of the
.
contract. The extra-ordinary jurisdiction
of the High Court under Article 226,
which is of a discretionary nature and
is exercised only to advance the interests
of justice, cannot certainly be employed
in aid of such persons. Neither justice
of
nor equity is in their favour.
36. Lastly, we may also invoke the holding
in Har Shankar and Jageram that the
rt writ petitioners, having entered into
agreements voluntarily, containing the
conditions aforesaid and having done
the business under the licences obtained
by them, cannot be allowed to either
wriggle out of the agreements nor
can they be allowed to challenge the
validity of the Rules which constitute
the terms of the contract. The High
Court should not have exercised its
extra-ordinary discretionary Article 226 of
the Constitution in aid of such licencees.”
PETITIONER HAS NO INHERENT RIGHT TO
CARRYING LIQUOR BUSINESS DEHORS THE
TERMS OF CONTRACT:
14(i-g). While negating the plea of a liquor-
licensee for renewal of license or continuity, the
Three Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 66 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
in the case of Secretary to Government, TN
and Another versus K Vinayagamurthy, (2002)
7 SCC 104, mandated that in matters relating
.
to trade in noxious or dangerous goods, no citizen
can claim an inherent right to sell intoxicating
liquor by retail or claim any privilege for such
trade and State can impose reasonable restrictions
of
to regulate such trade, including augmentation
of excise revenue.
rtPLEA THAT MODE OF PAYMENT OF LICENSE
FEE VIOLATED IS WHOLLY UNTENABLE:
14(i-h). The plea of the petitioner that action
of the State Authorities in cancelling the license
for non-deposit of license-fee prematurely was
contrary to condition no 2.42 of the Excise
Announcements, whereby, license fee was payable
in twelve instalments.
The above plea cannot sustain, for the
reason, firstly, the petitioner has misconstrued
Condition no 2.42 of the terms and conditions
as contained in Excise Announcements for the
year 2023-2024; and secondly, the first part of
condition no 2.42 expressly provides that the
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 67 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
“annual license fee” (as per bid /tender offered)
shall be “divided into twelve instalments”, so
that entire license fee is cleared by 15 th March
.
of the financial year; and thirdly, the second
part of condition no 2.42 prescribes the mode
of payment of the aforesaid twelve instalments,
by mandating that the “license fee payable
of
for a particular month” shall be deposited ingovernment treasury by the seventh day of
rt
the subsequent month”. The terms and conditionsof contract prescribe the mode and the manner
of payment of annual license fee spreading over
12 instalments, but with the added rider that
license fee payable for particular month, would
be deposited by 7 th day of the subsequent month
and in above backdrop, the petitioner had failed
to deposit the license fee which became due
for the month of September 2023 and became
payable before 7 th of October 2023 and likewise,
the petitioner had failed to deposit the license
fee for the month of October 2023 which became
due and payable before 7 th November 2023 and
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 68 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
license fee for the period thereafter till 08.11.2023. ,
Based on these facts, Deputy Commissioner
Sales Tax and Excise Una sent a report to
.
Zonal Incharge-Collector-cum-Joint Commissioner
at Palampur, who issued notices and afforded
opportunity of personal hearing directing him
to deposit unpaid license fee, as the failure to
of
deposit the license fee was a gross violation of
the terms and conditions of contract as spelt
out in
rt Annual Excise announcements. Plea of
the petitioner that the license fee could not
be deposited or remitted due to sufferings in
business, was held not to be a ground, for
showing indulgence for the reason, that the
terms and conditions were binding and the
State is entitled to its money inaccordance with
the mode of deposit of license-fee stipulated
under the contract and the mutual rights and
liabilities of the parties are governed by terms
of contract and mere non-performance due to
extraneous reasons which did not exist in the
contract and the petitioner-licensee has no right
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 69 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
to seek alteration or modification of the express
terms of contract providing for the nomenclature
and mode of payment of licensee-fee etc, in view
.
of the broader principle mandated by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and others versus Lalit Jaggi, (2008)
10 SCC 607.
of
B. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT ARE
SACROCANT:
14(i-i). rtIn executory contracts, the core principle
is that if a contract is silent about consequences
for non-performance then, further performance
can be excluded but, in case, a contract spells
out the consequences for non-performance then,
in such eventuality, the doctrine of frustration /
impossibility or plea of risk due to unforeseen
circumstances is not applicable, for the reason,
that a contracting party after having accepted
the terms and conditions of contract can neither
take shelter of non-performance nor can such
a licensee invoke the plea of fairness or
reasonableness, so as to seek amendment or
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 70 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
alteration or variation in the expressed terms of
contract between the parties, as outlined by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mary
.
vs State of Kerala and Others, (2014) 14 SCC
272, in following terms:
15. From a plain reading of the aforesaid
provision it is evident that on the
failure of the auction purchaser toof
execute the agreement whether temporary
or permanent, the deposit already made
by auction purchaser towards earnest
rt money and security
forfeited. Undisputedly, the appellant was
money shall bedeclared as auction purchaser and, in
fact, she had deposited 30% of the bid
amount, that is, 7,68,600/- in termsof Rule 5(10) of the Rules. It is further
an admitted position that the appellant
did not execute a permanent agreementor for that matter, did not execute
the privilege. Hence, in terms of sub-
rule (15) of Rule 5, the money deposited
by her is liable to be forfeited. However,
as stated above, the appellant’s plea
is that it was due to the facts beyond
her control that she could not derive
benefit from the privilege granted to
her and hence did not run the shop.
Therefore, the security amount deposited
by her is not fit to be forfeited. In
view of the aforesaid, what falls for
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 71 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
our determination is as to whether
the appellant could invoke the doctrine
of frustration or impossibility or
whether she will be bound by the
terms of the statutory contract. In
.
other words, in case of a statutory
contract, will it necessarily destroy all
the incidents of an ordinary contract
that are otherwise governed by the
Contract Act, 1872?
of
18. The doctrine of frustration excludes
ordinarily further performance where the
contract is silent as to the position of
the parties in the event of performance
rt becoming literally impossible. However,
in our opinion, a statutory contract
in which party takes absolute
responsibility cannot escape liability
whatever may be the reason. In such
a situation, events will not discharge
the party from the consequence of
non-performance of a contractual
obligation. Further, in a case in
which the consequences of non-
performance of contract is provided
in the statutory contract itself, the
parties shall be bound by that and
cannot take shelter behind Section
56 of the Contract Act…”.
24. We have given our most anxious
consideration to the submission advanced
and we do not find any substance in
the submission of the learned counsel
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 72 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
for the appellant and the decision
relied on by her, in fact, carves out
an exception in case of a commercial
transaction. The duty to act fairly is
sought to be imported into the statutory
.
contract to avoid forfeiture of the bid
amount. The doctrine of fairness is
nothing but a duty to act fairly and
reasonably. It is a doctrine developed
in the administrative law field to ensure
rule of law and to prevent failure
of
of justice where an action is
administrative in nature. Where the
rt function is quasi-judicial, the doctrine
of fairness is evolved to ensure fair
action. But, in our opinion, it certainly
cannot be invoked to amend, alter,
or vary an express term of the
contract between the parties. This
is so even if the contract is governed
by a statutory provision i.e. where it
is a statutory contract.”
14(i-j). While dealing with the case relating to
cancellation and resumption of plots for failure
to pay installments or license fee, the action of
the Respondent-Authority was upheld, by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smitra
Jain vs Haryana Urban Development Authority
and Another, (2020) 13 SCC 465, in following
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 73 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
terms:
15. We also agree with the High Court that
the Estate Officer did not commit any
illegality by resuming the booth site.
because the petitioner had persistently
failed to pay the instalments of price
despite the notices issued to her under
Sections 17(1), (2) and (3). A ranked
defaulter like the petitioner is not
entitled to relief under Articles 226
of
or 227 of the Constitution. This is also
the ratio of the judgments of this Court
in Municipal Corpn., Chandigarh vs.
Shanti kunj Investment (P) Ltd., State (UT
rt of Chandigarh) v. Amarjeet Singh and
Haryana State Agricultural Mktg. Board
v. Raj Pal….”.
14(i-k). Based on the factual matrix and the
discussion made hereinabove and the principles
outlined by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
cases of Har Shankar, Panna Lal, Jageram,
Issac Peter, Narain Prasad, K. Vinayagamurthy,
Lalit Jaggi, Mary and Smitra Jain (supra),
this Court has no hesitation to hold that the
Impugned Orders passed by the Respondent No
3- Collector (Excise)-cum-Joint Commissioner of
State Taxes and Excise Palampur, in cancelling
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 74 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the liquor license of the petitioner on 18.11.2023
[Annexure P-2], for not-depositing the license
fee for the months of September 2023 and
.
October 2023, which were payable before 7.10.2023
and 7.11.2023 respectively and non-deposit of
license fee thereafter till 08.11.2023 despite the
issuance of notices and having been afforded
of
personal hearing, by giving him opportunities
to deposit the unpaid license fee, being violative
rt
of Condition no 2.42 of the terms and conditions
of the statutory contract contained in the Excise
Announcements and being violative of Section
29 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011
is legal, valid and is inaccordance with law.
Even, the orders passed by the Respondent no
1-Appellate Authority on 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1]
dismissing the appeal, under Section 68(2) of
Himachal Pradesh Excise Act 2011 after giving
opportunity to petitioner to deposit the license
fee [even during appeal as mentioned in Para
4 of order] is legal and valid and these orders
do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality.
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 75 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
The Question formulated [in Para 7 of
judgement] as to whether the petitioner after
having accepted the contract for liquor business,
.
can resile from or wriggle out of the express
contractual obligations and /or otherwise evade
liability for payment of license fee and penalty
etc., upon the cancellation of liquor license; is
of
answered in the negative, for the reason, that
the action of the petitioner in not adhering
rt
to the terms and conditions of contact in not
remitting or not depositing license fee as per
schedule, on account of hardships or unexpected
developments or any other unfavourable conditions
causing loss [lesser liquor rates in bordering
State of Punjab] or recission in business cannot
be a ground for the petitioner to wriggle out
or resile from its contractual obligations and
the plea of the petitioner that State Authorities
were bound to act fairly and to consider these
aspects is untenable. The plea of fairness cannot
be invoked so as to modify or alter the stipulated
conditions of contact. Accepting the plea of the
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 76 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
petitioner shall lead to rewriting of contract or
would tantamount to introducing new conditions
is impermissible and same is outside the purview
.
of this Court. The petitioner has no right to
seek creation of an obligation, upon the State
which does not exist in the contract. Once the
petitioner has voluntarily, freely and with open
of
eyes participated in an auction and acceptance
of bid had culminated into a contract and the
contract
rt expressly spells out the consequences
for non-performance [i.e. cancellation of license
for not depositing the license fee]. Reciprocal rights
and obligations arising out of contract do not
depend for their enforceability upon whether a
contracting party finds it prudent to abide by
the terms of contract and in case, such a test
is applied, then, no contract could ever have
a binding force. Going by the prudence of a
party, contrary to express mandate of a contract
shall certainly defeat the “sanctity attached to
the terms and conditions of contract”, can “neither
be put to a naught nor defeated on the mere
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 77 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
pretext of some events or difficulties, falling
outside the express conditions” mandated in a
contract. In an executory contract, there is no
.
guarantee for profits and no warranty against
losses. A party, after having accepted the contract,
cannot be permitted to blow “hot and cold” by
enjoying the profits under the contract but in
of
questioning the terms and conditions when
it comes to suffering losses. This plea cannot
rt
sustain, in view of the principle of “approbation
and reprobation.” Executory contracts originate
from the “doctrine of election”, whereby, a person
voluntarily and out of his free will and with
open eyes, having knowledge of the terms and
conditions contained in the bid document [as
reflected in Annual Excise Announcements], and
upon acceptance of bid and grant of license,
commences execution of work, then, the petitioner
is bound to fulfil its obligations, by remitting
or depositing license fee. Failure to deposit the
license fee has validly led to the cancellation
of license of the petitioner, for the reason, that
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 78 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
in executory contracts, the State is entitled to
its money (being excise revenue) in terms of
the contract. Failure to deposit the license-fee
.
has validly resulted in cancelling the license
on 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2], in the light of
Section 29 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act
2011 and the Condition no 2.42 of the Excise
of
Announcements is inaccordance with law and
the orders passed by Respondent no 1-Appellate
rt
Authority on 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1] dismissing
the appeal, under Section 68(2) of the Himachal
Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 after affording two
opportunities to the petitioner to deposit the
license fee [even during appeal as mentioned in
Para 4 of the order] speaks volumes of non-
performance and inaction of the petitioner, and
therefore, the contention of Learned Counsel for
the petitioner is misconceived and is turned
down. Accordingly, the Impugned Orders do not
suffer from any perversity, infirmity and illegality
and both the orders are upheld.
PLEA OF FREEZING ACCOUNTS UNTENABLE:
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 79 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
15. Third contention of Learned Counsel is
that Respondents freezed the bank account of
the petitioner on 17.11.2023, in an unfair and
.
illegal manner.
The above plea cannot sustain, for the
reason, that firstly, petitioner has not assailed
alleged action of freezing of bank account by
of
Respondent no 4-cum-Deputy Commissioner Sales
Tax andrt Excise before the Respondent no 3-
Collector-cum-Joint Commissioner Sales Tax and
Excise (NZ) Palampur under Section 68 of HP
Excise Act within the stipulated period of 30
days; and secondly, even while assailing the
orders dated 18.11.2023 of cancelling the liquor
license before Appellate Authority-cum-Respondent
no 1-cum-Financial Commissioner in an appeal
[Appeal No 08 of 2023], the petitioner has
chosen not to assail the order of freezing his
bank account; and thirdly, the petitioner after
having chosen not to assail the alleged order of
freezing of account before the statutory authorities
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 80 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
under the Statute disentitles the petitioner from
raising this plea in the instant proceedings;
and fourthly, even otherwise and notwithstanding
.
the above aspects, the petitioner failed to establish
that the action of freezing the bank account
has prejudiced the petitioner by depriving him
of his right to deposit the license fee {due
of
for the months of September 2023 and October
2023 till the date of cancellation of license on
rt
18.11.2023; and fifthly, nothing has been placed
on record in instant proceedings to assert and
establish that though petitioner had adequate
amount-funds in his bank account but freezing
of bank accounts has deprived the petitioner
of his right to deposit the unpaid license
fee for the period in question; sixthly, even
the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him
for discretionary relief in instant proceedings,
for the reason, that a perusal of the appellate
order dated 22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1], reveals
that though the appellate authority had granted
two opportunities to the petitioner to deposit
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 81 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the license fee but the petitioner had expressed
his inability to deposit the license-fee and the
petitioner had nowhere asserted and established
.
(by placing material on record) that his inability
to deposit the license fee was solely due to
freezing of bank account(s) ; and seventhly, the
plea of freezing bank account appears to be
of
an afterthought, when, on query by this Court,
Learned State Counsel has apprised this Court
rt
that bank accounts, allegedly freezed temporarily,
have very meagre amount. Pertinently, in case
alleged freezing of accounts had adversely affected
him or had come in the way of the petitioner
to deposit the license fee and the petitioner
really intended to deposit the arrears of license
fee, in that eventuality, the petitioner would
have come up clean and clear before this Court
by showing his bonafides, undertaking to deposit
the license-fee liability but for alleged freezing
of accounts. Absence of these material aspects
and the conduct of the petitioner disentitles
him for discretionary relief in writ proceedings;
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 82 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
and eighthly, it is admitted case of the petitioner
that he was allotted Unit No 3 Santoshgarh,
for a total license fee of Rs 9,20,00,000/- for
.
financial year 2023-24 on 18.03.2023 and though
the petitioner has remitted the license fee till
June 2023 but the license fee for the month
of September 2023 payable before 7.10.2023 and
of
license fee for month of October 2023 payable
before 7.11.2023 and the license fee thereafter
till
rt
08.11.2023 remained unpaid. Material on
record indicates that the petitioner was given
personal hearing by the Respondent No 3 on
9.11.2023, 10.11.2023, 15.11.2023 and 16.11.2023,
directing him to deposit the unpaid license fee
to the State Authorities and lastly, the action
of the State Authorities in freezing the bank
account, in peculiar fact-situation of the instant
case, as so as to safeguard the “excise revenue”
in the teeth of Sections 71 and 73 and to
protect “interests of the State” and for attaining
the objective of HP Excise Act/Rules and Excise
announcements and the terms of contract-license,
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 83 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
due to the non-cooperative attitude and conduct
of the petitioner in not discharging his contractual
obligation, by not depositing the unpaid amount
.
of license fee, for which, the State Authorities
had issued various notices and afforded personal
hearings and granted opportunities to deposit the
license fee, but in vain. In these circumstances,
of
the action of the State Authorities being fairand valid does not warrant any interference, in
rt
instant proceedings.
PLEA OF NOT TAKING ACTION AGAINST
OTHER DEFAULTERS UNTENABLE-NEGATIVE
PARITY-IMPERMISSIBLE:
16. Fourth contention of the Learned Counsel
for the petitioner is that the State Authorities
have discriminated the petitioner as no action
was taken against other defaulters in Una District
and elsewhere who have not deposited the license
-fee.
The above plea, is devoid of any merit,
for the reason, that the contractual obligations
arising out of the contract are binding inter-se
the parties. Plea of the petitioner that no action
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 84 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
was taken against other alleged similar defaulters
who had not deposited license fee cannot be
sustain, in view of the fact that the equality
.
in Article 14 of the Constitution of India does
not envisage negative equality. Illegality cannot
be permitted to be perpetuated. In contracts,
reciprocal rights and obligations of the parties
of
inter-se are strictly governed by the terms and
conditions of contract. Article 14 cannot apply
rt
in a negative manner. The contention of Learned
Counsel for the petitioner is not tenable in view
of the mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
State of Orissa and Another vs Mamata Mohanty,
(2011) 3 SCC 436, in following terms:-
56. It is a settled legal proposition that
Article 14 is not meant to perpetuateillegality and it does not envisage negative
equality. Thus, even if some othersimilarly situated persons have been
granted some benefit inadvertently or
by mistake, such order does not confer
any legal right on the petitioner to get
the same relief…”
16(i). While dealing with plea on cancellation
of license or allotment for failure to pay the
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 85 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
installments or license fee, without taking action
against other defaulters, the claim for equality
was repelled, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
.
Dalip Singh and Others v. State of Haryana
and Others, (2019) 11 SCC 422, in the following
terms:
19. All the judgments relied upon by the
of
appellants are distinguishable on facts.
Even assuming that for some other
allottees, order of resumption of
rt plot had been quashed/cancelled, the
appellants cannot claim equality of
treatment. Article 14 is a positive
concept and cannot be enforced by
a citizen in a negative manner. In
State of Orissa and another v. Mamata
Mohanty (2011) 3 SCC 436….”
56. It is a settled legal proposition
that Article 14 is not meant
to perpetuate illegality and it does
not envisage negative equality.
Thus, even if some other similarly
situated persons have been granted
some benefit inadvertently or by
mistake, such order does not
confer any legal right on
the petitioner to get the same relief.
AFTER CANCELLATION OF LICENSE SAME
WAS ALLOTTED TO ANOTHER ILLEGALLY
-MISCONCEIVED:
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 86 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
17. Fifth contention of Learned Counsel for
the petitioner that after the cancellation of
liquor license of the petitioner on 18.11.2023,
.
the State Authorities have allotted/re-allotted the
retail license to the Respondent No. 5 illegally,
by a backdoor procedure.
The above plea cannot sustain, for
of
the reason, that a perusal of Paras 17 (D) &
(E) of the Reply-Affidavit negates this contention
rt
as Condition no 3.26 of Excise Announcements
2023-24 indicates that in the event of cancellation
of retail license during the currency of the
year, the Collector Excise may re-allot it to an
eligible allottee, and therefore, in this backdrop,
Respondent No 5 was re-allotted the unit just
to prevent loss in government revenue by adopting
a transparent manner as per procedure, in the
following terms:
17D. That the facts of this sub-para are
unsubstantiated and contrary to the
provisions of the law hence denied. As
per condition No. 2.42 of the Excise
Announcements for the year 2023-24 the
Zonal In- charge has power to cancel::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 87 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the license within three days positively
in case licensee fails to pay the monthly
license fee in time i.e. by the 7th day
of the subsequent month. Further as
per Condition No. 3.26 of the Excise.
Announcements 2023-24 in the event
of cancellation of retail license during
the currency of the year the Collector(Excise) may re-allot it as per the directions
of the Financial Commissioner (Excise).
Therefore, the cancellation of licenseof
granted to the petitioner and its further
re-allotment to Respondent No. 5 has
been carried out as per the mandate of
rt
the Excise Act, 2011 and the policy
framed thereunder. It is also submittedthat the trade in liquor is not a fundamental
right of the Petitioners and the Government
has exclusive privilege to make rulesregarding the trade in liquor. For each
Financial Year, the Excise Policy is approved
by the Cabinet and Excise Announcementsare issued by the State Government for
grant of liquor license. All the types oflevies to be paid by the licensee to the
State Government are lucidly delineatedin the announcements alongwith the
timelines for payment thereof. The Petitioner
is bound to have gone through the contents
of the Excise Announcements before opting,
on their own volition, to run the Excise
Vends and once they have been granted
the license, it becomes mandatory for
them to comply with all the terms and::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 88 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
conditions laid therefor in the Excise
Announcements for the Year 2023-24.
E. That the averments made in this sub-
para are not legally tenable, hence denied.
.
The license cannot be permitted to
play with Government Revenue on the
pretext that he is suffering losses. The
re-allotment of Unit allotted to the petitionerin favor of Respondent No.5 was done
as per the provisions of law. The claimof
of the petitioner that respondent No.
5 was given back door entry on a
lower bid is totally frivolous done with
rt a purpose to hoodwink this Hon’ble Court.
The unit was re-allotted by auction-cum-
tender as per the procedure prescribed
in a completely transparent manner.”
In these circumstances, the action of
the State Authorities in re-allotting the Unit No
3 of Santoshgarh to Respondent No 5 in terms
of Condition No 3.26 of the Excise Announcements
Annexure P-4 /R-1, does not suffer from illegality
or infirmity. Moreover, during the pendency of
the instant petition, the petitioner has chosen
to delete the Respondent no 5, and that being
so, petitioner is estopped to lay challenge to
the reallotment of unit to Respondent no 5 behind
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 89 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
her back. Accordingly, this plea is bound to fail
and ordered accordingly.
CHALLENGE TO CONDITION NO 2.42 OF
EXCISE ANNOUNCEMENTS MISCONCEIVED:
.
18. Contention of Learned Counsel for the
petitioner that Condition no 2.42 of Annual Excise
Announcements for 2023-2024 [Annexure P-4] is
of
arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional is whollymisconceived and same cannot sustain, when,
the
rt
petitioner has failed to point out as towhy and on what basis, the aforesaid condition
is arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional. Bald
averments cannot be a ground to sustain such
challenge. In absence of any manifest arbitrariness
or inherent illegality or unconstitutionality, the
challenge to this condition cannot sustain, and
moreso, when, the petitioner has accepted such
conditions and has commenced performance and
has deposited the license fee as per schedule
but the inability to deposit the license fee from
September 2023 and October 2023 and thereafter,
due to hardships, inconvenience or loss-recission
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 90 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
in business or any other like factors, outside
and beyond the express terms and conditions
of contract cannot be a ground to show indulgence
.
in the instant case. Accordingly, this plea also
fails.
CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED STATE COUNSEL :
19. Per contra, the matter was argued by Mr
of
Anup Rattan, Learned Advocate General, assistedby Mr. Sushant Keprate Learned Additional Advocate
rt
General, who has supported the Impugned Orderspassed by statutory authorities inaccordance with
law, by referring to the various provisions of
the Act, the Excise announcements and the
mandate of law as has been discussed here-in-
above.
CONCLUSION IN CWP No 9721 of 2023 :
20. Sequel to above discussion, the orders
dated 18.11.2023 [Annexure P-2], passed by
the Respondent no 3- Collector (Excise)-cum-Joint
Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, North
Zone, Himachal Pradesh, Palampur, in cancelling
the liquor license granted in Form L-2/L-14/
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 91 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
L-14S to the petitioner; and the order dated
22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1], dismissing the appeal
filed under Section 68(2) of the Himachal Pradesh
.
Excise Act 2011 and the order freezing the bank
account; and action of reallotting the cancelled
unit and the challenge to condition no 2.42 of
Excise Announcement [Annexure P-4] does not suffer
of
from any perversity, infirmity or illegality; and
the Impugned Orders and actions of the State
rt
Authorities are upheld.
ANALYSIS OF CONTENTIONS IN CWP No 115 of
2024
21. Sanjeev Kumar and three others, have
assailed the final notice issued by the Respondent
No 4- Deputy commissioner Sales Taxes and Excise
issued on 30.11.2023 [Annexure P-1] pointing out
a liability on account of license fee and penalty
of Rs 2,80,60,881/, in the capacity of them, being
partners of M/s Kanda Wines (petitioner in connected
CWP No 9721 of 2023, M/s Kanda Wine vs State
of Himachal Pradesh and others}. It was averred
that the Respondent No 5, namely Arun Kumar,
(in present writ petition} was allotted liquor license
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 92 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
on 18.03.2023 for a license fee of Rs 9,20,00,000/-
whereas partnership deed alleged to have been
executed on 22.03.2023 [Annexure P-2] was never
.
executed by the petitioners and alleged partnership
deed was falsely and illegally prepared by the
Respondent No 5 and same was not binding on
petitioners herein. It was averred that as per the
of
Condition no 2.46 of the Excise Announcements,
Collector of the zone was bound to incorporate
rt
factum of partnership in the license deed/allotment
letter which was not done. It was averred that the
petitioners were neither aware of any proceedings
nor any orders having been passed by department
against the Respondent No 5, Arun Kumar.
22. Per contra, based on the stand in the
Reply-Affidavit dated 20-3-2024 of Commissioner
State Taxes and Excise Himachal Pradesh, Learned
Advocate General stated that petitioners have not
availed statutory remedy of appeal under Section
68 of the HP Excise Act, 2011 against the final
notice dated 30.11.2023. [Annexure P-1], passed by
Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Una,
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 93 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
i.e. Excise Officer within 30 days before Respondent
no 3 i.e. Collector-cum-Joint Commissioner, State
Taxes & Excise, North Zone, Palampur and therefore
.
the writ petition was not maintainable.
22(i). Learned Advocate General based on reply,
further submits that Respondent No 5-Arun Kumar
had presented the partnership deed duly signed
of
by all partners in office of Deputy Commissioner,
State Taxes & Excise, Una on 22.03.2023, before
rt
the commencement of business which was carried
out with effect from 01.04.2023 in the name of
M/s Kanda Wines. It is submitted that petitioners
did not at any point of time object to or brought
to the notice of the authorities that the partnership
deed was illegal and they had not affixed their
signatures on the aforesaid deed.
22(ii). Learned Advocate General further submits
that reliance placed by the petitioner on Condition
No 2.46 of Excise Announcements was not applicable
in the instant case, as it relates to addition or
deletion of partners during the currency of license
period. Learned Advocate General further submits
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 94 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
that in terms of Condition No 2.12 of Excise
Announcements 2023-24, all the partners of the
firm shall be jointly and severally liable to meet
.
the liabilities. It was submitted that petition is an
afterthought and once the petitioners have enjoyed
privileges of the liquor business from 01.04.2023
to 30.11.2023 for about eight months but when
of
it came to recovering the license fee and penalty,
then, instant petition wass filed just to deprive the
rt
State of its Government dues.
CONCLUSION IN CWP 115 of 2024
23. Considering contentions of Mr. Subhash
Sharma. assisted by Mr. Prantap Sharma and
Mr. Anup Rattan Learned Advocate General assisted
by Mr. Sushant Keprate for the Respondents-
State and Mr. H S Rana Learned Counsel for
the Respondent No 5 (Arun Kumar), this Court
in view of the discussion made hereinafter; is
of the considered view, that seriously disputed
questions of facts and law are involved, which
cannot be conclusively adjudicated, without enabling
the parties to assert and establish a right
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 95 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
(by adducing evidence or otherwise) inaccordance
with law, for the reason, firstly, it is the case
of the petitioners that partnership deed dated
.
22.03.2023 [Annexure P-2] was never executed
by them but the said deed been falsely executed
prepared by the Respondent no 5 (Arun Kumar);
and secondly, partnership deed dated 22.03.2023
of
being falsely prepared by respondent no 5 was
not binding on the petitioners; and thirdly, the
rt
fact as to whether a person (Respondent no 5-
Arun Kumar) who bids in an individual capacity
after acceptance of bid can be allotted the
tender -license in the capacity of a partnership
deed, as done in instant case, behind the back
of the petitioners and that too when, partnership
deed is disputed; and fourthly, whether the State
Authorities could grant the liquor license to
partnership firm i.e. M/s Kanda Wine {petitioner
in connected writ petition, CWP No 9721 of 2023
through Shri Arun Kumar Respondent no 5 in
CWP No 115 of 2024] without intimating the
factum of grant of license to them in capacity
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 96 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
of partners, [in the light of Rule 4 (d) and Rule
6 of Himachal Pradesh Liquor License Rules 1986
and Condition no 2.9 of Excise Announcements]
.
behind their back; and fifthly, the validity of the
alleged partnership deed dated 22.03.2023 needs
to be looked into; and sixthly, though Learned
State Authorities have taken a stand in reply
of
that once the petitioners after having reaped the
fruits of the partnership deed dated 22.03.2023
[Annexure
rt P-2] then, they cannot turn around
and question the same, cannot be accepted on
its face value, when, nothing has been placed
on record by the State Authorities to indicate
that the petitioners in capacity of partners have
accepted and reaped the fruits of partnership.
In these circumstances, these disputed questions
of facts and law, need to be ascertained and
established in appeal ; and seventhly, unless and
until the veracity of the alleged partnership deed
is adjudicated upon, Final Notice dated 30.11.2023
[Annexure P-1] cannot be permitted to operate,
as it would lead to travesty of justice, by making
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 97 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
the petitioners to face huge liability of license
fee in lastly, in facts of instant case, even the
State authorities have taken an objection that
.
the petitioners have a remedy of appeal under
Section 68 of the Act against the issuance of
Final Notice dated 30.11.2023 [Annexure P-1] and
enabling the petitioners to file an appeal, so
of
that the factual and legal issues, as indicated
above, were adjudicated by the appellate authority,
rt
inaccordance with law.
24. Consequently, for the reasons in Para
23 (supra) and the seriously disputed questions
of facts and law, {in CWP No 115 of 2024},
this Court disposes of the present writ petition,
with the direction to the petitioners to file an
appeal, if so desired, before the Appellate Authority
under Section 68 of Himachal Pradesh Excise
Act, against issuance of Final Notice 30.11.2023
[Annexure P-1]; and in case, such an appeal
is filed within 30 days from today; the Appellate
Authority shall decide the appeal, on merits,
after associating the petitioners as well as the
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 98 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Respondents 1 to 5 and all others, if any,
inaccordance with law on or before 15.10.2026;
and Till the decision as aforesaid, the State
.
Authorities shall not take any coercive action
against the petitioners {in CWP No 115 of 2024}
pursuant to the Final Notice dated 30.11.2023
[Annexure P-1], in view of interim orders passed
of
by this Court on 09.01.2024.
25. No other point was argued/raised.
rt DIRECTIONS:
26. In view of above discussion and for
reasons recorded hereinabove, the writ petition,
CWP No 9721 of 2023 is dismissed ; and the
connected writ petition, CWP No 115 of 2024 is
disposed of, in following terms:
(i). Civil Writ Petition, CWP No 9721
of 2023, titled as M/s Kanda Wineversus State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, is dismissed;
(ii). Impugned Orders dated 18.11.2023
[Annexure P-2] passed by Respondent
no 3, cancelling the liquor license
of the petitioner and orders dated
22.11.2023 [Annexure P-1] passed by::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 99 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
Appellate Authority-Respondent no 1
dismissing the appeal, are upheld;
(iii). Challenge to the freezing orders and
condition no 2.42 of Annual Excise
.
Announcements [Annexure P-4] being
devoid of merit, are declined;
(iv). Upon dismissal of CWP No. 9721
of 2023, the State Authorities are
of
at liberty to proceed against the
petitioner, M/s Kanda Wine, if so
desired, for the recovery of unpaid
rt license-fee inaccordance with Section
71 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise
Act and law, hereinafter;
(v). Civil Writ Petition, CWP No 115 of
2024, titled as Sanjeev Kumar and
others, is disposed of ;
(vi). Sequel to direction no (iv), petitioners
in CWP No 115 of 2024, are directed
to file an appeal, if so desired,
under Section 68 of the Act, against
the Final Notice dated 30.11.2023
[Annexure P-1], within 30 days from
today; and
(vii). Upon filing of appeal, the Appellate
Authority shall decide the same,
on merits, and in accordance with
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
– 100 – ( 2026:HHC:26633 )
law, on or before 15.10.2026, after
associating the petitioners as well
as the Respondents 1 to 5 and all
concerned, if any;
.
(viii).Needless to say, that till decision
of appeal, the Final Notice dated
30.11.2023 [Annexure P-1], shall be
kept in abeyance [refer Para 23] and
orders dated 09.01.2024 passed by
of
this Court;
(ix). Subject to outcome of appeal as in
rt directions no (iv) to (vi) supra, State
Authorities shall be free to proceed
against the petitioners in CWP No
115 of 2024, inaccordance with law;
(x). Parties shall bear respective costs ;
In the aforesaid terms, both the writ
petitions and all the pending applications, if any,
shall accordingly, stand disposed of.
(Vivek Singh Thakur)
Judge
(Ranjan Sharma)
Judge
July 06, 2026.
[Shivender]
::: Downloaded on – 06/07/2026 20:35:05 :::CIS
