Judicial review allows courts to intervene and direct administrative actions to ensure just outcomes even when statutory requirements appear unmet, emphasizing the inherent power of the judiciary.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This Review Petition has been preferred by the State against the impugned judgment dated 23.9.2025 passed in CWP No. 8561 of 2024, which was preferred by respondent No. 1-Mars Bottlers (respondent herein) against the petitioners are as well as respondent No. 2. Following directions have been passed by this Court vide judgment dated 23.9.2025 allowing the Writ Petition:

“39. In view of above, orders dated 15.6.2024 and 9.12.2024 are quashed and set aside and the Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise is directed to determine appropriate compounding fee in consonance with the relevant provisions, in the light of aforesaid observations, within 15 days of passing of this order and, thereafter, to pass an appropriate order with respect to renewal of licence of the petitioner.”

2. Learned Advocate General has submitted that Review Petition has been preferred on three grounds. First that plea of learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Petitioner that application for renewal of old licence can be made even at delayed stage and on such application, Commissioner Excise with approval of Financial Commissioner, on payment of fee chargeable for renewal of such application, can renew the licence, was disputed on behalf of review petitioners-State, but in para 36 of the impugned judgment, it has been recorded that aforesaid plea has not been disputed. It has been submitted that Punjab Distillery Rules, 1932 are applicable in State of Himachal Pradesh, but subject to amendment carried out therein time to time and vide Notification dated 31.3.1994 issued by Excise and Taxation Department of Himachal Pradesh, Punjab Distillery Rules, 1932 stand amended, wherein Rule 9.7 of the said Rules has been substituted and in the said substituted Rule 9.7, there is no provision for permitting to file an application for renewal, if not already filed at least 90 days before the expiry of year, for which licence has been granted or renewed.

3. Second, that in para 28 of the impugned judgment, it has been stated that offence alleged to have been committed under Sections 26 , 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 or 59 of the Act were and are compoundable and it has been observed that in view of Section 66 of the Act, penalty imposed by the Commissioner was highly disproportionate. It has been stated on behalf of review petitioners-State that this Court has referred of the H.P. Excise Act, 2011 for issuing direction wherein Sections 39 III and IV of H.P. Excise Act, 2011 are not compoundable under Sections 66 or 67 of the Excise Act because illicit liquor recovered from a Truck No. HR-39D-8993, found in premises of bottling plant was 4274.640 BLS and quantity of the compounded illicit liquor was beyond the quantity of liquor for which compounding would be permissible and, therefore, penalty, imposed by the Review Petitioners-respondents, did not deserve to be interfered with.

4. Lastly, it has been submitted that validity of licence granted for the year 2023-24, stands expired on 31.3.2024 and as such licence stands canceled automatically as per Rule 9.7(1) and 9.7(2) of Punjab Distillery Rules, 1932, as applicable in the State of Himachal Pradesh, whereas there is no provision for considering application for renewal, if not filed at least 90 days before the expiry of year for which the licence had been granted or renewed.

5. With regard to first contention, it is clarified that so far as we remember, the plea of the Review Petitioners that Punjab Distillery Rules, 1932, as amended on 27.11.1963 contained provision of permitting filing of application at belated stage, if not already filed at least 90 days before the expiry of the perm