2025:HHC:33211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 13807 of 2025 Decided on: 23.09.2025 Rajinder Kumar and others … Petitioners Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioners : Mr. Gurinder Singh Parmar, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Rahul Thakur, Dy. AG for respondents-State. : Mr. Lal Chand Chauhan, Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Baddi, present in person with case record. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioners have approached this Court inter alia praying for the following reliefs:- “(a) That the writ of demand dated 05.08.2025 may kindly be held arbitrary and illegal and be set aside. b. That the respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to not to direct petitioner and one Yogeshwar as partner, but to address the partnership firm i.e. M/S CHANDIGARH COUMMINATION as per last updated shares and partners as per partnership deed cum addition of new partner deed dated 09.06.2016 for future references, if any. 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:33211 c. That the respondent No. 1 and 2 be directed to furnish calculations as well as grounds on which the writ of demand dated 05.08.2025 was issued and to further clarify why such arrear is shown pending despite re-auctioning of vend allotted to the firm, form 01.12.2016-31.03.2017.” 2. When this case was listed before the Court on 27.08.2025, the following order was passed:- “Notice confined to respondents No.1 and 2 at this stage. Mr. Pushpinder Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. List on 23.09.2025. On the next date of hearing, learned Additional Advocate General shall produce record to demonstrate as to whether any documents was provided to the petitioners alongwith Annexure P-5, in terms of the contents thereof or not, because, the specific allegation of the petitioners is that the so called accompanying certificate mentioned therein was never provided to the petitioners. Further, till the next date of hearing, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of Annexure P-5. However, this is subject to deposition of an amount of Rs.10 lac by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court within a period of 15 days from today.” 3. Today, the record has been produced by learned Deputy Advocate General and a perusal thereof demonstrates that alongwith Annexure P-5, i.e. communication dated 05.08.2025, no document 3 2025:HHC:33211 was appended demonstrating as to how the amount in issue has been arrived at. 4. In light of this fact, as the contention of the petitioners has been found to be correct, as agreed, these proceedings are disposed of with the direction that the demand notice dated 05.08.2025, which stands impugned by way of this petition, i.e. Annexure P-5, is quashed and set aside but with liberty to the Department to issue a fresh demand notice by appending therewith the documents on the basis of which the demand is being raised from the petitioner. Appropriate order be passed thereupon after hearing the petitioners. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that the respondents are proceeding against the petitioners in a biased manner. He stated that whereas in Annexure P-5, demand notice has been issued only against four partners of M/s Chandigarh Communications, however, the number of partners of M/s Chandigarh Communications is more than four, which includes the proforma respondents also. It goes without saying that the proceedings under Section 75 of the H.P. Land Revenue Act will not be undertaken by the authorities in a partisan manner. If certain recoveries are to be effected from M/s Chandigarh Communications, then it be done from all the parties and not by initiating proceedings against the petitioners only. 4 2025:HHC:33211 6. The amount that has been deposited by the petitioners with the Registry of this Court is ordered to be refunded back to the petitioners. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 23, 2025 (narender)