State of Hp and Others Vs K K Associates through its partner Shri Gurcharan Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

LPA No.344 of 2026 Reserved on : 01.07.2026 Decided on : _08.07.2026 Uploaded on : 08.07.2026

State of HP and Others		...Appellants.
	Versus
M/s K.K. Associates		…Respondents.
Coram

¶4

Hon’ble Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia, Chief Justice.

¶5

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

¶6

Whether approved for rep	orting?¹
For the appellants :	Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sparsh Bhushan, Advocate.
For the respondent(s) :	Mr. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate.

¶7

Bipin Chander Negi, Judge

¶8

The present appeal has been preferred against the

¶9

impugned judgment dated 26.5.2026 passed in CWP No.7857 of 2025, titled M/s K.K. Associates VS. State of HP and Others, whereby writ petition preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed. While allowing the writ petition the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-20 filed with the writ petition) passed by the Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh, has been set aside. Besides the petitioner has been held entitled to refund of revenue loss

¶10

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

¶11

-2-

¶12

suffered by it along with 15% interest per annum, and the quantification of the writ petitioner's/respondent's revenue loss as determined in the report dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure

¶13

P-18 in the writ petition) passed by the Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise has been directed to verify with respect to the quantification of the actual loss, as determined in the aforesaid report within a period of two weeks from the passing of the impugned judgment by the Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Himachal Pradesh .

¶14

In terms of the Annual Toll Announcements for the Financial Year 2023-24, vide letter dated 14.03.2023, the writ petitioner/respondent herein had been allotted the toll unit in the revenue District Baddi-Barotiwala-Nalagarh for the year 2023-24. The aforesaid allotment had been made on account of accepting of the bid of the writ petitioner, which was for a sum of Rs.21,72,00,009/-(Annexure P-2 filed with the writ petition). According to the writ petitioner/respondent herein, on account of adverse weather conditions, three major bridges at Maranwala, Pinjore, Lohgarh Railway Crossing, and Charnia Bridge at Pinjore-Baddi National Highway-105, connecting the revenue district of Baddi-Brotiwala-Nalagarh, had either been

¶15

-3-

¶16

washed away or had been rendered unusable during the rains/monsoon in 2023. Besides the aforesaid, in the writ petition it was averred that a bridge near the town of Pinjore (Haryana) about twelve kms from the boundary of the state of Himachal Pradesh had collapsed thereby effecting the flow of traffic on the national highway entering the district where the toll barrier of the writ petitioner was located as a result whereof toll collection was severely hampered (paras 7,8 of the writ petition).

¶17

Other than the aforesaid, as per the writ petitioner/respondent herein, in August 2023, a major bridge close to the toll collection point of the writ petitionerfirm/respondent, was declared unfit for traffic (para 10 of the writ petition). Based on the aforesaid, in the writ petition preferred, it was contended by the writ petitioner/respondent that with effect from July 2023 till March 2024, the writ

¶18

petitioner/respondent, on account of less toll collection as roads, bridges were unusable and it took time to making them operational, suffered losses (para 16 of the writ petition). In order to substantiate loss caused, the writ petitioner/respondent has placed reliance on a report dated 18.12.2024 submitted by the Assistant Commissioner Excise,

¶19

-4-

¶20

wherein the revenue loss has been assessed at

¶21

Rs.3,15,80,010/- on account of natural disaster (Annexure P- 18 filed with the writ petition).

¶22

In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, it is the pleaded case of the writ petitioner/respondent that no help was forthcoming from the appellants to the writ petitioner/respondent despite requests made in this regard. Rather, to the contrary, penalties were levied upon the writ petitioner for delayed payments. The writ petitioner made the requisite payments to the appellant authorities including penalties so levied(para 16 of the writ petition).

¶23

In the response filed, numerous preliminary objections have been taken. For refuting the claim on merit reliance has been placed upon a letter dated 12.09.2023 issued by the Superintendent, Police, Revenue District Baddi, (Annexure R-2/1 filed with the response to the writ petition) to demonstrate that majorly no traffic was hampered/affected due to rains in the District Baddi. Based on the aforesaid letter, in the response filed, it has been contended that the number of vehicles exiting Baddi had not declined as per information collected from the concerned Truck Union at Baddi. However, in the same letter it has been admitted that the vehicles were

¶24

-5-

¶25

using alternative routes due to the damage of the toll barrier bridge. Besides, in the letter dated 12.09.2023, it is admitted that the traffic was diverted via Barotiwala to Baddi for smooth regulation.

¶26

Other than the aforesaid, in the response filed, it is admitted that the petitioner/respondent suffered loss on account of intermittent road closure. The road closure was stated to be only for a few days (ten days). The rejection of the representation dated 22.04.2024 by the Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise, vide its order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-20 filed with the writ petition) has been supported in the response filed to the writ petition.

¶27

In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, a representation qua loss suffered on account of natural calamity was made to the Additional Commissioner State Taxes and Excise (In-charge sub-zone) on 02.09.2023. The same was decided on 12.09.2023 (Annexure R-2/2 filed along with the reply to the writ petition by the respondent). The same was rejected on the ground that the Additional Commissioner was not competent to pass an order on the representation, in terms of the provisions of toll policy announcements for the year 2023-24.

¶28

-6-

¶29

Other than the aforesaid, a request for refund was

¶30

made by the writ petitioner/respondent by a representation dated 22.04.2024. Since no action was being taken on this representation, therefore, the writ petitioner had preferred CWP No.11255 of 2024. The same was decided on 04.10.2024. From a perusal of the judgment passed on 04.10.2024, it is evident that the Commissioner of State Taxes and Excise was directed to decide the pending representation dated 22.04.2024, keeping in view Clause 2.8.1 of the Toll Announcements for the Financial Year 2023-24. The representation so made was rejected vide order dated 22.01.2025, reasons for rejection being that the loss suffered by the writ petitioner/respondent herein was on account of intermittent road closure only for 10 days. For the remaining 355 days, the writ petitioner was stated to have been in business.

¶31

For rejecting representation dated 22.04.2024 vide order dated 22.01.2025, reliance has placed on the letter dated 12.09.2023 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi (Annexure R-2/1, at page 209 of the paper book), wherein it has been submitted that there was no decline in number of vehicles exiting Baddi, as per the

¶32

-7-

¶33

information received from the concerned truck union, as the vehicles had been using alternative routes and the traffic was diverted via Barotiwala to Baddi for smooth regulation. From the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances it is evident that within the prescribed period of limitation (within a year in terms of clause 2.8.2 of the toll announcement for the year 2023-24) appropriate claim for refund had been raised by the writ petitioner.

¶34

In the impugned judgment clauses 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements for the year 2023-24 have been reproduced. The claim of the writ petitioner is based on the aforesaid provisions. The learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has correctly appreciated the provisions 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements for the relevant period qua refund of any amount of lease money paid by the lessee in the event of any loss sustained by the toll lessee on account of natural calamity, act of God, force majeure, thereby correctly holding that the writ petitioner has a right to raising the claim in the case at hand in view of clauses 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements for the year 2023-24. Besides the procedure prescribed therein for determination of the loss suffered has also been correctly appreciated by the

¶35

-8-

¶36

learned Single Judge. No infirmity has been pointed out in the appreciation of the aforesaid two provisions, namely Clause 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements for the year 202324.

¶37

In pursuance to the directions dated 04.10.2024 passed in CWP No. 11255 of 2024, while considering the representation dated 22.04.2024 made by the petitioner qua refund of loss of revenue quantified therein with respect to the toll barrier in the case at hand on account of natural disaster it has been correctly observed by the learned Single Judge that in the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-20, filed with the writ petition), the Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, HP has not considered the report dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-18 filed along with the writ petition at page 164 of the paper-book) passed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-BBN, appropriately. Besides, reliance placed on the letter dated 12.09.2023 written by the Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi, (Annexure R-2/1, filed along with the response filed to the writ petition), has not been appreciated in a correct perspective, especially when, in the matter, it is an admitted position that on account of damage to the toll bridge, vehicles were using

¶38

-9-

¶39

alternate route by-passing the writ petitioner's toll plaza. The pleadings in the writ petition qua specific instances of damage to bridge, road infrastructure time taken for restoration of the same have not been specifically refuted. There is no specific denial. Hence pleadings to this effect have gone un-rebutted. Rather it is admitted that on account of damage to bridge, road infrastructure as claimed by the writ petitioner the toll bridge of the writ petitioner was being by-passed by traffic as alternate routes were being used.

¶40

The learned Single Judge has correctly recorded the finding that in terms of Conditions 2.8.1 and 2.8.2, the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, has prepared a report, in terms of the procedure prescribed. The recommendations made in the report are required to be forwarded to the Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise for approval of the same. In the report so prepared, reasons cited by the toll lessee for suffering loss on account of damage caused due to major bridges connecting Baddi have been affirmed. Actual damages sustained by the toll lessee have also been quantified. The learned Single Judge has correctly observed that the recommendations so made have been wrongly rejected by misinterpreting a single letter of the

¶41

-10-

¶42

Superintending of Police, Police District Baddi, dated 12.09.2023, (Annexure R-2/1).

¶43

Last but not the least, the writ petitioner has been correctly held entitled for refund along with interest at the rate of 15% from the due date in light of toll Condition 2.3.18 (reproduced in the impugned judgement), as on account of said condition for delayed payment, the writ petitioner had to pay interest at the rate of 15% per annum. The application of the condition vice versa upon the appellants for the reasons mentioned in the impugned judgment cannot be faulted with. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, the present appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶44

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

¶45

(G.S. Sandhawalia) (Bipin Chander Negi) Chief Justice Judge

¶46

08^th July, 2026 (Gaurav Rawat)

State of Hp and Others v. K K Associates through its partner Shri Gurcharan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Others v. K K Associates through its partner Shri Gurcharan Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sakhi Mohammad Vs H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

Shahidan Bibi Vs H.P. State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.

The Chamba Truck Operators Union Vs the State of Hp

Hotel Saffron Kiran through Its Prop Puneet Thakur Vs the Union of India

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Hp and Others

The Executive Engineer Jal Shakti Vibhag Divion Palampur District Kangra Hp Vs Manmohan Singh