Swaroop Singh Rana vs. State of HP CWP No. 14395 of 2025 03.11.2025 Present: Mr. Subhash Mohan Snehi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sushant Keprate, Additional Advocate General, for the respondents. CMP No. 26173 of 2025 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 31st October, 2025. On 12.9.2025 following order was passed:- “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. 3. 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. 4. 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 31st October, 2025, as prayed by petitioner and agreed by respondents, failing which respondents shall be at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law against the petitioner. 5. 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.” As a matter of fact, order dated 12th September, 2025 was 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. 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 1st November, 2025 and from the date of passing of order dated 12th September, 2025 till 31st 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. 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. Learned counsel for petitioner, under instructions, makes persuasive submission for extending the time to deposit the outstanding amount. Considering the aforesaid submissions of both sides, time to deposit the outstanding amount in terms of order dated 12th September, 2025 is extended upto 15th December, 2025 but with rider that in case petitioner fails to deposit the outstanding amount, as stated supra, on or before 15th 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. 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. 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. 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 30th November, 2025. (Vivek Singh Thakur) Judge November 03, 2025 (Sushil Kukreja) (ms) Judge