1 ( 2026:HHC:39413 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA COPC No. 79 of 2026 Decided on: 16.09.2026 ________________________________________________ Devesh Kumar & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus Harish Kumar …Respondent _ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioners : Mr. B.N. Sharma, Additional Advocate General. For the respondent : Mr. Narendra Guleria, Mr. Loveneesh Singh Thakur and Mr. Chandresh Pal, Advocates. Sushil Kukreja, Judge (oral) Vide order dated 29.12.2025, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has passed the following order:- “……...in the interregnum, the earlier order passed by this Court is modified to the effect that the petitioner(s) shall continue to pay the current licence fee in terms of the conditions of allotment of vends to the petitioner(s) and the arrears, if any, shall be cleared before 31.01.2026. The arrears shall also include the fee etc., for the period quo which the dispute has been raised by the petitioner(s) before this Court. It goes without saying that the deposition of this amount shall be construed to be under protest and shall abide by the final adjudication of the writ petition. Besides this, it is further clarified that if 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2026:HHC:39413 ) the petitioner(s) do not clear the arrears by 31.01.2026, then, the State shall recover the same alongwith interest @ 6% simple interest, as from the date due, because, the benefit of deferred payment is being given to the petitioner(s) by this Court. It also goes without saying that if the current licence fee i.e., payable by the petitioner(s) is not paid by the petitioner(s) in the garb of this order, then, also the Department shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner(s) in accordance with law…...” 2. The perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that in case of petitioner’s (respondent herein) failure to pay the due amount to the authority before 31.01.2026, the Department shall be at liberty to proceed against the petitioner(s) in accordance with law. 3. Therefore, in this view of the matter, in the opinion of this Court, the present contempt petition is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners/State to take appropriate action against the respondent as is permissible under the law. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) 16th September, 2026 Judge (raman)