Dismissed¶21

Swaroop Singh Rana v. the State of Hp and Others

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Sept 2025CWP/14395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Excise licence fee arrears; extension of time application; conditional extension with default cost of Rs. 25 lakhs; contempt proceedings exposure; cost of Rs. 2 lakhs for wasting the time of the Court; Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund; Himachal Pradesh Excise Policy 2025-26; minimum guaranteed quota of liquor; running monthly liability exceeding Rs. 53 lacs; application dismissed at petitioner's own prayer; petitioner using Court as tool to defer payment; Swaroop Singh Rana vs. State of HP; CWP No. 14395 of 2025; CMP No. 26173 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

Time to deposit the outstanding amount in terms of order dated 12th September, 2025 was extended upto 15th December, 2025, with the rider that failure to deposit the outstanding amount by that date would attract the stipulated default consequences. ¶18

Swaroop Singh Rana Vs the State of Hp and Others — Himachal Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's application (CMP No. 26173 of 2025) for extension of time till 31.12.2025 to clear his entire outstanding licence-fee liability in terms of order dated 12.9.2025 should be allowed. +2 more

¶6

Court's answer

On default in depositing the outstanding amount on or before 15th December, 2025, the petitioner was to be liable, in addition to other legal consequences and liabilities including contempt proceedings, to pay cost of Rs. 25 lacs.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

¶18

Key takeaways

The petitioner was to continue clearing/paying the current monthly licensing fee well within time as payable in terms of the Policy/Contract, notwithstanding the extension proceedings.obiter¶19
The Court held that the petitioner's instruction to seek dismissal of the application rather than accept the cost-conditioned extension clearly indicated that he was not keen on clearing the outstanding amount and was using the Court as a tool to defer payment of the liability; on this footing the Court accepted counsel's prayer and imposed costs.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

CMP No. 26173 of 2025 in CWP No. 14395 of 2025 (Swaroop Singh Rana vs. State of HP): petitioner sought extension of time till 31.12.2025 to clear excise licence-fee arrears due under the Court's order dated 12.9.2025 (deadline 31.10.2025, Excise Policy 2025-26). The State reported an outstanding liability of Rs. 1,83,55,972 as on 01.11.2025, deposits of only Rs. 38,84,141 between 12.9.2025 and 31.10.2025, and a running monthly liability exceeding Rs. 53 lacs. The Court initially extended time to 15.12.2025 subject to a rider of Rs. 25 lakh cost (besides other consequences including contempt proceedings) on default; learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, thereupon prayed for dismissal of the application rather than accept the cost-conditioned extension. The Court accepted the prayer and dismissed the application with costs of Rs. 2 lacs for wasting the time of the Court, payable to the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund on or before 30.11.2025, observing that the petitioner was not keen on clearing the outstanding amount and was using the Court as a tool to defer payment of liability.

¶1

Swaroop Singh Rana vs. State of HP

¶2

CWP No. 14395 of 2025

¶3

03.11.2025 Present : Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶4

Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents.

¶5

CMP No. 26173 of 2025

¶6

This application has been preferred by petitioner for extension of time till 31.12.2025 to clear his entire outstanding liability towards licence fee in terms of order dated 12.9.2025 passed in main petition CWP No. 14395 of 2025, which was to be cleared by 31^st October, 2025.

¶7

On 12.9.2025 following order was passed:-

¶8

“2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that he has instructions to say that petitioner would be satisfied in case petitioner is granted six weeks time to clear liabilities including pending license fee for previous months by 31.10.2025 and to lift minimum guaranteed quota as required to be lifted in terms of Excise Policy for the year 2025-26.

¶9

No objection has been communicated for granting time to the petitioner to perform his part in terms of Excise Policy for the year 2025-26 including payment of entire arrears of license fee as payable in accordance with Excise Policy/law as applicable.

¶10

In view of above, petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to clear his entire liability towards license fee and lift the quota of liquor in terms of Excise Policy for the year 2025-26 on or before 31^st October, 2025, as prayed by petitioner and agreed by respondents, failing

¶11

which respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner.

¶12

It is made clear that aforesaid order shall not absolve the petitioner from his current and future liabilities regarding payment of license fee as well as lifting liquor quota in terms of Excise Policy.”

¶13

As a matter of fact, order dated 12^th September, 2025 was

¶14

passed in a petition preferred by petitioner on the basis of instructions imparted by petitioner through his counsel, for which no objection was communicated by respondent/State.

¶15

In response to application, learned Advocate General has placed on record the instructions received from the Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise Himachal Pradesh along with other documents whereby it has been communicated that petitioner has outstanding liability of Rs.1,83,55,972/- as on 1^st November, 2025 and from the date of passing of order dated 12^th September, 2025 till 31^st October, 2025, petitioner has deposited only Rs,38,84,141/-. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent/State that running liability is accruing every month more than Rs.53 lacs and petitioner is also in default in making the current liability of ongoing month.

¶16

It has been submitted by learned Advocate General that petitioner does not deserve any extension of time, however, in any case, extension, if any, is to be granted to petitioner, the same should be subjected to payment of exemplary cost in case there is default in clearing the outstanding amount on or before the extended time.

¶17

Learned counsel for petitioner, under instructions, makes persuasive submission for extending the time to deposit the outstanding amount.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid submissions of both sides, time to deposit the outstanding amount in terms of order dated 12^th September, 2025 is extended upto 15^th December, 2025 but with rider that in case petitioner fails to deposit the outstanding amount, as stated supra, on or before 15^th December, 2025 then in addition to other legal consequences and liabilities including contempt proceedings, the petitioner shall also be liable to pay cost of Rs.25 lacs.

¶19

Needless to say that petitioner shall keep on clearing/paying the current monthly licensing fee well within time as payable in terms of Policy/Contract.

¶20

At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submits that if extension of time is being granted subject to payment of cost of Rs.25 lac in case of default, then he has instructions to pray for dismissal of this application and he has prayed accordingly. The aforesaid instruction clearly indicates that petitioner is not keen in clearing outstanding amount rather he is using the Court as a tool to defer the payment of liability.

¶21

In aforesaid facts and circumstances, accepting the prayer of learned counsel for petitioner, application is dismissed but with cost of Rs.2 lacs for wasting the time of Court, which shall be deposited in the Chief Justice Disaster Relief Fund on or before 30^th November, 2025.

¶22

(Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge

¶23

November 03, 2025 (Sushil Kukreja) (ms) Judge

Swaroop Singh Rana v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swaroop Singh Rana v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tirupati Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Hp and Others

M/S Internation Cylinders Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Hp and Others

Tirupati Wellness Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Hp and Others

Lok Raj Saini Vs the State of Hp and Others

State of Hp Vs Sunil Khan

Rishita Kapur and Another Vs Vijay Kapoor and another