1 ( 2025:HHC:6655 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7993 of 2024 a/w CWP No. 8011/2024 Decided on: 18.03.2025 ______________________________________________________________ (1) CWP No. 7993/2024 Balbinder Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents (2) CWP No. 8011/2024 Gaurav Mahajan ....Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. …Respondents __ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. _______________________________________________________________ Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Satish Kumar & Mr. Goverdhan Lal, Advocates. For the respondents : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. I.N. Mehta, Senior Additional Advocate General, Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Mr. Sushant Keprate, Ms. Sharmila Patial, Additional Advocates General and Mr. Raj Negi, Deputy Advocate General. Tarlok Singh Chauhan , Judge (oral) 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:6655 ) Both these petitions seek to challenge an internal communication dated 28.05.2024, which is addressed by the Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Nurpur Circle, Revenue District at Jachh to the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, Revenue District Nurpur at Jachh, informing him regarding the amount to be recovered from licensees of Nurpur Circle for the year 2023-24 due to difference in slab rate. 2. No doubt, names of both the petitioners herein figure in the list, but nonetheless the fact remains that this is only an internal communication and no recovery on the basis of such communication has been effected or ordered to be effected and if ordered to be effected, the same is not on record. 3. We really wonder how these petitions could have simply sought quashing of an internal communication, insofar as the petitioner(s) is concerned, given the fact that there is nothing on record to indicate that the contents of this communication were as a matter of fact given effect to. 3 ( 2025:HHC:6655 ) 4. In this view of the matter, clearly both these petitions are premature and are accordingly dismissed. However, dismissal of these petitions shall not come in the way of the petitioner(s), in case, the respondents seek to effect recoveries based upon the aforesaid communication, which petition(s), needless to say, as and when filed, shall be considered on its own merits. 5. All interim orders are vacated. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ) Judge ( Sushil Kukreja ) 18th March, 2025 Judge (raman/sumit)