##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA .

CWP No. 13269/2025 Decided on: 24.03.2026

M/s Himgiri Beverages (Distiller & Bottler) ….Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & Ors. .…Respondents.

…………………………………………………………………………….

Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1

For the petitioner: Mr. Sunil Mohan Goel, Sr.

Advocate with Mr. Paras Dhaulta, C Advocate.

For the respondents: Mr. Seema Sharma, Deputy h Advocate General.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J

Petitioner felt aggrieved by the closure of its factory

by the State Excise & Taxation Department at the instance of the Police Department. The Station House Officer (SHO), Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour, on 19.07.2025, addressed a communication to the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, District Sirmour, conveying that, during a checking conducted on the basis of suspicion concerning a truck bearing No. HP-89B-3600,

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 02:23:41 :::CIS

2

discrepancies were noticed in the documents in possession of its driver. The truck driver was booked under Section 39(1)(A) of the H.P. Excise Act, 2011 in FIR No. 117/2025 dated 19.07.2025 registered at Police Station Kala Amb, District Sirmour. The SHO requested the Deputy Commissioner, State Excise & Taxation for stopping the production, import, export of liquor by petitioner’s factory during the pendency of the investigation and for preserving the CCTV

camera recordings.

2. In view of above communication, the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, on 19.07.2025 itself, directed the Assistant State Taxes & Excise Officer to stop the production, import and export of liquor at petitioner’s factory. Directions were also

issued for preserving the CCTV camera recordings.

3. On 21.07.2025, the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise conveyed to the Superintendent of Police, District Sirmour,

about joint inspection conducted of petitioner’s factory on 20.07.2025 and collection of available evidence. A specific request was made for letting the petitioner factory resume its operations keeping in view the loss of revenue to the State besides losses being suffered by the petitioner. This was followed by a reminder from the Deputy Commissioner State Taxes & Excise on 26.07.2025. Petitioner also requested the respondents to let it run the factory, which was statedly suffering huge losses every day on account of its closure. Since the

::: Downloaded on - 26/03/2026 02:23:41 :::CIS

3

respondents were not permitting the petitioner to run its factory, the

present writ petition was filed.

4. A detailed order was passed in the matter on 21.08.2025. Pursuant to the same, petitioner was allowed by the respondents to run its factory. The main grievance raised by the petitioner thus stands redressed to the extent that it has been allowed to operate its unit. However, the reply filed by the respondents gives an impression that none of the respondent departments are willing to take the responsibility for ordering closure of petitioner’s factory. According to the State Taxes & Excise Department, petitioner’s factory was closed at the instance of the Police Department, whereas, the Police Department has taken the stand that it had merely requested the State Taxes & Excise Department to consider closure of petitioner’s unit in order to preserve evidence for the purpose of investigation being carried out in the FIR. Be that as it may. The

action of the State Taxes & Excise Department in ordering the closure of petitioner’s factory cannot be said to be justified. The Excise Department was required to apply its independent mind before directing complete halt of production activities at petitioner’s unit and to maintain that status for days together despite collection of requested evidence. Similarly, the respondent Police Department ought not to have requested the complete closure of petitioner’s unit without examini