Devesh Kumar & Ors. vs. M/s Lavanya Spirits COPC No.80 of 2026 28.07.2026 Present: Mr. B.N.Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Kuthiala, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tamanna Sharma, Advocate vice Ms. Garima Kuthiala, Advocate, for the respondent. The present contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners for non-compliance of the order dated 29.12.2025, passed by this Court in CWP No.17502 of 2025, titled as M/s Lavanya Spirits vs. State of H.P. & Ors. Reply to the petition, has been filed on behalf of the respondent. I have heard learned Additional Advocate General as well as learned counsel for the respondent and also gone through the record of the case. A perusal of the record reveals that on 29.12.2025, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had passed the order that arrears shall be cleared by the respondent herein before 31.01.2026 with the stipulation that if the respondent doesn’t clear the arrears before 31.01.2026, then the State shall recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% simple interest, as from the date due and also Department shall be at liberty to proceed against the respondent herein in accordance with law. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, it has been averred that the petitioners have invoked the provision of Excise Act of H.P. and H.P. Land Revenue Act and further they have taken unilateral action, whereby the petitioners have unilaterally corresponded with the Manager of the Bank, where the respondent has got his account for the purpose of seizure and stoppage of all transactions. It has further been mentioned in the reply that CWP No.17502 of 2025, is still pending before a Coordinate Bench of this Court and the rights of the parties have yet to be adjudicated in the same. Since the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. had already ordered the seizure of the account being maintained/operated by Daulat Ram, Partner M/s Lavanya Spirits, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present contempt petition is not maintainable and accordingly, the same is dismissed being not maintainable. However, it is made clear that applicants/petitioners are at liberty to recover the arrears from the respondent by taking recourse to such legal remedy as available to them under law. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge July 28, 2026 (reena)