Uttarakhand High Court
Garv Malhotra vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 6 August, 2026
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
Reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 395 OF 2026
Garv Malhotra .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
With
WRIT PETITION (M/B) NO. 404 OF 2026
Megha Malhotra .....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s) : Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep
Kothari and Mr. Mohd. Suhail,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned
Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Amarendra Pratap Singh, Mr.
Ganesh Kandpal, learned
Additional Advocate General, Mr.
Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned
Deputy Advocate General, Mr.
J.S. Bisht and Mr. B.P.S. Mer,
learned Standing Counsel.
Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned
Senior Counsel through video
conferencing assisted by Mr.
Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel.
Judgment Reserved on: 20.07.2026
Judgment Delivered on: 06.08.2026
1
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting)
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta)
1. The present writ petitions have been filed by the
petitioners invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questing
the legality of the decision dated 17.02.2026 taken by the
Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand whereby three Indian
Made Foreign Liquor (for short hereinafter referred to as
“IMFL”) shops in District Dehradun, including the shops in
dispute situated at Dalanwala, Parade Ground, Dehradun and
Rajpur Road (near RTO), Dehradun were directed to be
settled by inviting offers based on highest revenue. The
challenge has also been laid to the consequential proceedings
culminating in allotment of the said shops in favour of
respondent no.5. The petitioners further seek a direction for
consideration of their respective claims for renewal of licenses
in accordance with the Excise Policy.
2. The facts of both the cases are almost similar. For
convenience of discussion, the facts from Writ Petition (M/B)
No.395 of 2026 are being noted.
2
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
3. The State Government promulgated the
Uttarakhand Excise Policy, 2025 by Government Order dated
05.03.2025. It regulates the settlement of retail liquor shops
in the financial years 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28. The
policy prescribed the manner in which existing licenses were
to be renewed and, in the event of failure of renewal, the
procedure to be followed for settlement of such shops.
4. The petitioner along with proforma respondent no.6
was the licensee of the IMFL shop at Rajpur Road (near RTO),
Dehradun for the financial year 2025-26. Under the Policy,
the existing licensees, who fulfilled the prescribed conditions,
were entitled to seek renewal on payment of enhanced
annual revenue fixed by the State. The enhanced annual
revenue prescribed for renewal of shops for the financial year
2026-27 stood enhanced by approximately 4% over the
preceding year.
5. In order to operationalise the process of renewal
and settlement of liquor vends in the State, the Excise
Commissioner issued detailed Guidelines dated 03.02.2026
prescribing the procedure for renewal as well as settlement of
shops remaining unsettled after renewal. Applications for
renewal were required to be submitted between 12.02.2026
3
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
and 16.02.2026. The case of the petitioner is that he
submitted the renewal application in the office of the District
Excise Officer on 16.02.2026, but he was not issued any
acknowledgement despite repeated requests. Therefore, on
the very next day, i.e. 17.02.2026, he sent e-mail to the
Principal Secretary, Excise, with copies thereof to the District
Magistrate, District Excise Officer and the Excise
Commissioner stating that he had duly submitted his renewal
application on 16.02.2026, but no receipt had been issued to
him. He also made prayer for renewing his license.
6. The State- respondents deny receipt of any renewal
application from the petitioner. According to them, on the
expiry of the last date, the District Excise Officer examined all
renewal applications received in District Dehradun and found
that applications had not been received in respect of the
three shops, namely, Rajpur Road (near RTO), Dalanwala
(parade ground), and GMS Road.
7. The District Excise Officer accordingly submitted a
report dated 17.02.2026 to the Excise Commissioner
informing her that these three shops had remained un-
renewed. By another report, submitted on the same day, it
was suggested that these shops possess the potential of
4
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
fetching revenues substantially higher than the prescribed
annual revenue and, therefore, instead of following the
normal procedure, they may be settled by inviting maximum
offers.
8. The suggestion regarding the possibility of fetching
higher revenue was made on basis of certain proposals
received from existing licenses and other persons, the value
of which, as stated in the report, are as follows:-
Sl. Name of Prescribed Value of Prescribed Value of
No. IMFL Revenue for offer Revenue for offer
Shop Financial received Financial received
Year 2026- Year 2027-
27 28
1. Rajpur 8,69,84,820 9,00,70,000 9,04,64,213 9,30,14,000
Road
(near
R.T.O.)
2. Dalanwala 9,57,08,343 10,00,90,000 9,95,36,677 10,20,60,000
(Parade
Ground)
3. G.M.S. 12,70,33,668 13,00,60,000 13,21,15,015 13,40,18,000
Road
9. The names of the persons from whom higher offers
were allegedly received have not been mentioned. It is
relevant to note here that as per clause 12 of the General
Instructions, any offer received from any person is required
to be entered in the proposal receipt register. However, the
offers on basis of which, the aforesaid recommendation was
made, do not find any mention in the proposal receipt
register. On the very same date, i.e. 17.02.2026, the Excise
Commissioner accepted the recommendation and directed
5
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
that the aforesaid three shops be settled by inviting
maximum offers. The order records that such decision was
taken in exercise of power under Rule 42 of the Excise Policy
in the interest of securing maximum revenue for the State.
10. Pursuant thereto, a notice dated 18.02.2026 is
stated to have been issued from the office of the Excise
Commissioner. The respondents describe the said notice as a
public advertisement inviting offers. It is as follows:-
“कायार्लय आबकारी आयु�, उ�राखण्ड, देहरादून।
संख्या: 23928/ सात लाई०-48/आबकारी नीित-2025/देहरादून �दनांकः फरवरी, 18
2026
:िवज्ञि�:
सवर्साधारण को सूिचत �कया जाता है �क िव�ीय वषर् 2026-27 व 2027-28
(ि�वष�य) हेतु फु टकर म�दरा दुकान� के �वस्थापन हेतु उ�राखण्ड आबकारी नीित
िवषयक िनयमावली, 2025 (ि�वष�य) के अन्तगर्त ���या गितमान है। इच्छु क एवं आहर्
आवेदक सम्बिन्धत जनपद के कायार्लय िजला आबकारी अिधकारी एवं िवभागीय वेवसाईट
www.uttrakhandexcise.org.in तथा www.uk.gov.in पर �वस्थापन से सम्बिन्धत
जानकारी �ा� क� जा सकती है। म�दरा दुकान� के �वस्थापन से सम्बिन्धत समय-समय पर
जारी िनद�श उपरो� वेवसाईट पर उपलब्ध है।
(अनुराधा पाल)
आबकारी आयु�,
उ�राखण्ड ।
संख्या: 23929-33/ सात लाई०-48/आबकारी नीित-2025 / देहरादूनः त�द�नांक ।
�ितिलिपः िन�िलिखत को सूचनाथर् एवं आवश्यक कायर्वाही हेतु �ेिषत।
1. �मुख सिचव, आबकारी उ�राखण्ड शासन।
2. समस्त िजलािधकारी, उ�राखण्ड।
3. समस्त अपर/संयु�/उप आबकारी आयु�, उ�राखण्ड।
4. समस्त िजला आबकारी अिधकारी, उ�राखण्ड।
5. िहन्दी दैिनक समाचार प� अमर उजाला, रा�ीय सहारा, दैिनक जागरण, �हंदस्ु तान,
उ�र उजाला, पंजाब के सरी व अं�ेजी दैिनक द पायिनयर को इस आशय के साथ �ेिषत �क
उ�राखंड �ादेिशक संस्करण म� �दनांक 19.02.2026 को न्यूनतम स्थान म� �कािशत करते
�ए भुगतान हेतु िबल कायार्लय आबकारी आयु� उ�राखंड को �ेिषत करने का क� कर� ।
6
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
(अनुराधा पाल)
आबकारी आयु�,
उ�राखण्ड ।”
11. According to the respondents, the said notice was
also published in two newspapers, namely, Dainik Jagran and
Hindustan dated 19.02.2026.
12. It is noteworthy that the said publication does not
indicate the names of the shops proposed to be settled, nor
reserved license fees nor the minimum guaranteed revenue.
It did not prescribe the eligibility conditions, the mode of
publication, the authority before whom applications were to
be submitted, or the last date for submission thereof.
13. According to the respondents, notwithstanding the
aforesaid shortcomings in the notice, four offers were
received for the shop at Rajpur Road, (near RTO), four for the
shop at Dalanwala, (parade ground) and three for the shop at
GMS road. The District Excise Officer forwarded the offers to
the Excise Commissioner vide his letter dated 23.02.2026.
On 25.02.2026, the Excise Commissioner approved
settlement of three shops in favour of person offering the
highest annual revenue.
7
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
14. Consequently, the shop in question came to be
allotted in favour of respondent no.5. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner approached this Court.
15. The principal challenge in the writ petition is on the
ground that the respondents have completely bypassed the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the Excise Policy.
According to the petitioner, Rule 1.1(2) read with Rules 2.1.
to 2.4 prescribes a sequential procedure for settlement of
shops which were left out from being renewed. The first step
is a two stage lottery system. Only if the shops remain
unsettled, can they be allotted on “first come first serve”
basis. If still any shop remains unsettled even after
completing the aforesaid two modes, offers could be invited
based on maximum revenue.
16. The petitioner submits that none of these
mandatory procedures were followed but instead immediately
after the renewal process allegedly concluded, the Excise
Commissioner invoked Rule 42, and directed settlement of
shops on basis of so called maximum offer, but in respect
whereof there is no disclosure, nor any material on record.
Thus, the case of the petitioner is that the entire procedure
adopted by the Excise Commissioner was not only contrary to
8
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the procedure prescribed, but also orchestrated to extend
unfair benefit to the private respondent. The publication
dated 18.02.2026 was not at all offer of any invitation from
the public, but merely an eye-wash. According to the
petitioner, it never informed the public that applications were
being invited. Consequently, a large number of intending
participants were deprived of the opportunity to compete.
The entire action of the official respondents is unfair,
arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India. The petitioner has also alleged that
respondent no.5 is connected with a sitting politician and the
allotment of the shop in his favour was politically motivated.
17. Respondent nos.1 to 4 as well as respondent no.5
have filed their respective counter-affidavits controverting the
averments made in the writ petition(s). It has been pleaded
that the Excise Policy dated 05.03.2025 framed under Section
40 of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910 governed
settlement of retail liquor shops for the excise years 2025-26
to 2027-28. In terms of clause 1.1(3) of the Excise Policy,
the Excise Commissioner after obtaining prior approval of the
State Government issued General Directions dated
03.02.2026, keeping in view the objective of obtaining
maximum revenue. The applications for renewal of retail
9
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
liquor shops in District Dehradun were invited between
12.02.2026 and 16.02.2026. According to the respondents,
upon expiry of the last date, the District Excise Officer,
Dehradun, by communication dated 17.02.2026, informed the
Excise Commissioner that renewal applications had not been
received in respect of three IMFL shops, namely, Rajpur Road
(near RTO), Dalanwala (parade ground) and GMS Road.
Acting upon the said communication, the Excise
Commissioner directed that the aforesaid three shops be
settled so as to secure the maximum possible revenue for the
State. Pursuant thereto, a public notice inviting open offers
was published on 19.02.2026 inviting offers upto 21.02.2026.
The District Excise Officer, thereafter, forwarded the
proposals received under the open offer process to the Excise
Commissioner stating that the offers exceeded the maximum
revenue fixed under the Excise Policy. On 25.02.2026, the
Excise Commissioner approved the settlement of the said
shops to the highest offerer. Pursuant thereto, all the offers
received were placed before the District Level Allotment
Committee. It duly scrutinized the offers and thereafter
granted its approval for allotment of the three shops to the
highest offerers. Based on the recommendation of the said
Committee, the In-charge District Excise Officer, vide his
10
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
letter dated 02.03.2026, sought approval from the Excise
Commissioner for renewal of the shops and for allotment of
the three unrenewed shops in favour of the highest offerers.
On 07.03.2026, the Excise Commissioner granted the
approval. Acting upon the same, the allotment letters were
issued on 24.03.2026, by the In-charge Excise Officer acting
on behalf of the District Magistrate, in favour of the highest
offerers.
18. It is submitted that business in liquor is not a
fundamental right but merely a privilege which the State
confers keeping in mind the revenue considerations. The
impugned exercise having been taken in the interest of the
Revenue, the same cannot be assailed on the grounds taken
by the petitioners. In support of the said submission, learned
Advocate General as well as Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 have
placed reliance on the Constitution Bench judgment of the
Supreme Court in “State of Punjab & another vs. Devans
Modern Breweries Ltd. & another“, reported in (2004)
11 SCC 26.
19. The respondents have further pleaded that the
petitioner had neither submitted any renewal application
11
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
within the prescribed period nor participated in the open offer
process pursuant to the public notice dated 19.02.2026. It is
also their case that no contemporaneous complaint was made
before the Excise Commissioner or any competent authority
regarding non-receipt of renewal application and that despite
the availability of the statutory remedy under Section 11(1)
of the Excise Act, no appeal was preferred against the order
of settlement.
20. Respondent no.5, in his counter-affidavit, has
emphasized that the petitioner has deliberately misled the
Court by conveying an impression that he had filed renewal
application in time but the Authorities have not accepted the
same, while the truth of the matter is that no application was
filed by him within the timeline fixed for submission of the
renewal applications and it was only on the next date that he
sent an e-mail alleging that the Department was not
acknowledging the receipt of his renewal application.
21. It is further submitted that another misleading
stand taken by the petitioner is that the Excise Commissioner
had allotted the shop in dispute in favour of respondent no.5
vide order dated 17.02.2026, whereas, the allotment was
actually approved much later on 07.03.2026. The
12
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
submission, thus, is that the petitioner has not approached
this Court with clean hands and has made mis-statement,
therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on ground
of misstatement and suppression of material facts. In
support of the said submission, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for respondent no.5 has placed a heavy reliance on
the judgment of Supreme Court in “K.D. Sharma vs. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. and others“, reported in (2008)
12 SCC 481.
22. The respondents have also raised preliminary
objections regarding maintainability of the writ petition on the
ground of delay and laches, contending that although the
impugned action was taken in February and March, 2026, the
writ petition was instituted on 15.05.2026. It is urged that
on this ground as well, the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
23. Respondent no.5 has further alleged that the
petitioner and members of his family had over the preceding
years adopted the recurring pattern of allowing renewal
applications to lapse and thereafter securing settlement of
shops through open offer mechanism at amounts lower than
the prescribed revenue, thereby causing substantial loss to
13
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the State Exchequer. It is stated that in the present year, the
Excise Commissioner in order to secure highest revenue, has
adopted the open offer process after due advertisement. The
step taken by the Excise Commissioner is for protecting the
financial interest of the State and, therefore, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to question the same.
24. Having noticed the rival stands, this Court, by order
dated 21.05.2026 in Writ Petition (M/B) No.404 of 2026,
considered it appropriate to ascertain the circumstances, in
which, the procedure prescribed under the Excise Policy had
been departed from. The Principal Secretary, Excise
Department was accordingly directed to conduct an inquiry
and place before the Court the relevant records. The relevant
part of the said order is extracted below:-
“9. In the above facts and circumstance, we require the
Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of
Uttarakhand, Dehradun to hold an inquiry and apprise the Court as to
the how any allotment can be made without following the procedure
prescribed under the Excise Policy for settlement of shops, which had
remained unallotted.”
25. In compliance of the said order, the Principal
Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of
Uttarakhand, filed an affidavit [in Writ Petition (M/S) No.404
of 2026] enclosing therein the reports submitted by the
District Magistrate and the Excise Commissioner. The reports
14
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
narrate the chronology of events, leading to the decision
taken on 02.03.2026. They reiterate that no application was
received in respect of three IMFL shops. The Excise
Commissioner directed that the shops be settled keeping in
view the objective of securing higher revenue.
26. However, the stand of the State in Paragraph No.4
of the affidavit of the Principal Secretary (Excise) is
significant. It is stated that Rule 1.1(2) read with Rules 2.1
to 2.4 of the Excise Policy prescribes a step-by-step
procedure for settlement of shops remaining un-renewed. It
further records that the prescribed stages were not followed
before directing for settlement of shops by inviting offers on
basis of highest revenue. The report further records that
there was no justification for not invoking Rule 1.1(2) read
with Rules 2.1 to 2.4 and that the objective of maximizing
revenue alone could not justify departure from the prescribed
procedure. The inquiry report, therefore, observes that
allotment of the shops through the open offer process,
without following the procedure prescribed under the Excise
Policy, was not in accordance with the provisions of the
Policy. The stand of the State Government, as taken in
Paragraph No.4 of the affidavit of the Principal Secretary
(Excise) is extracted below for ready reference:-
15
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
“After having gone through both the reports; findings of the
inquiry are as follows:-
The Excise policy 2025-2028 clearly mentions in rule 1.1(2) that
“After the renewal process, the remaining unsettled domestic/
foreign liquor shop shall be reallocated as per the procedures
prescribed in this policy, namely, through lottery, first -come-
first-serve basis, and maximum offers, ensuring that such
allocations is settled in the interest of revenue” and further rules
2.1 to 2.4 clearly mentions that procedure for the settlement of retail
domestic/ foreign liquor shops.
These rules prescribe for the stepwise procedure for the
settlement of the shops. In light of the above mentioned rules it
is clear that due process as laid down for the allotment of non-
renewed shops was not followed either by the District level
allotment committee or the Excise Commissioner. There is no
justification for invoking Rule 42 of the policy by the
Commissioner as there are Rules prescribed for the due process
of allotment of non-renewed shops in the Rule 1.1.(2) and Rule
2.1 to 2.4. Further achieving maximum revenue as justification
and sole reason for allotment of shops in question through offer
without following due process is not in accordance with the
provisions of the excise policy.”
27. During course of hearing of the writ petitions on
14.07.2026, learned counsel for the petitioner stated that his
client is offering Rs.15.00 Lakh higher per month as revenue
for the shops in dispute. On the same date, the Court was
also informed that the petitioner in WPMB No.404 of 2026,
who was required to deposit Rs.10.00 Lakh as Security before
this Court in compliance of the previous order dated
17.06.2026 to prove her bonafide, had already deposited the
said amount.
16
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
28. On such offer made by the petitioner, Mr. Amit
Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
respondent no.5, prayed for time to place on record a
matching offer by respondent no.5. Consequently, on the
said date, the matter was adjourned to 16.07.2026.
29. On 15.07.2026, respondent no.5 filed an affidavit
wherein he made a counter-offer which was Rs.3.00 Lakh
higher than the offer of the petitioner. The petitioner,
thereafter, filed another affidavit stating that he is ready to
match any competitive offer submitted by any party.
30. In view of the offers and the counter-offers
received from the parties, learned Advocate General sought
liberty to call the parties and find out the best offer. For the
said purpose, he sought time till 18.07.2026.
31. Since the principal defence of the respondents was
that the impugned procedure had secured the highest
possible revenue for the State, this Court considered it
appropriate to test the correctness of the said contention and,
accordingly, accepted the request made by learned Advocate
General to permit him to call the parties and ascertain the
best offer. The order passed in this regard on 16.07.2026 is
as follows:-
17
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
“1. Mr. Sandeep Kothari and Mr. Mohammad Suhail, learned
counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Mr. Amarendra Pratap Singh, learned
Additional Advocate General with Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned
Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht & Mr. B.P.S.
Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel (through VC)
assisted by Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel for the respondent
No. 5.
4. Private respondent No. 5 has filed his affidavit stating that
he is ready to offer three lakhs higher than the offer of the petitioner.
5. The petitioner has thereafter filed another affidavit stating
that he is ready to match any competitive offer submitted by any
party.
6. Learned Advocate General appearing for the State submits
that the State in the aforesaid facts and circumstances desires to call
the petitioner, respondent No. 5 and, other persons, who had made
offer for the shop in question, and find out the best offer. He states
that the same would be done on 18.07.2026 at 12:00 noon.
7. The parties would be permitted to be present personally, or
through their authorized representative, for which a duly executed
Power of Attorney should be there in favour of the agent. The entire
proceedings would be videographed.
8. As jointly prayed, put up on 20.07.2026.
9. The interim order is extended till the next date of hearing
but with the clarification that the order would be effective only in
relation to the shop in dispute and not the third shop i.e. G.M.S.Road, Dehradun.”
32. Pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, the
State issued a fresh public invitation in newspaper and invited
offers from all interested participants. The result of the fresh
process is of considerable significance. A number of fresh
offers were received. The highest offers received pursuant to
the public invitation were substantially higher than the
18
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
amount at which the shops had originally been settled.
Indeed, in respect of the IMFL shop at Dalanwala (parade
ground), the maximum offer received is from one Neha
Watsal Chopra for Rs.1,51,00,000/- for the year 2026-27 and
Rs.1,60,00,000/- for the year 2027-28. In respect of IMFL
shop at Rajpur Road (near RTO), again the maximum offer of
Neha Watsal Chopra is for Rs.1,29,00,022/- for the year
2026-27 and Rs.1,33,00,000/- for the year 2027-28.
33. The entire proceedings in this regard were held in
the presence of a Committee constituted for the purpose by
the District Magistrate. It comprised of the ADM
(Administration) being the Chairman, In-charge District
Excise Officer, Dehradun, Excise Inspector, Sector-1,
Dehradun, Excise Inspector, Sector-2, Dehradun and the
Excise Inspector, Sector-3, Rishikesh. The entire proceedings
were videographed. The signatures of all the parties have
been duly obtained on the bid-sheet, in which, value of offer
given by each party is duly recorded. It bears signatures of
all the parties.
34. Having noticed the rival contentions and the
subsequent developments which have taken place during the
19
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
pendency of the writ petitions, the principal questions which
arise for determination are:-
“(i) Whether Rule 1.1(2) read with Rules 2.1 to 2.4
prescribes a mandatory sequential procedure for
settlement of shops remaining unrenewed;
(ii) Whether Rule 42 authorized the Excise
Commissioner to bypass the procedure specifically
prescribed under the Excise Policy;
(iii) Whether the publication dated 18.02.2026
constituted a valid public invitation granting equal
opportunity to every intending offerer and was fair and
transparent;
(iv) Whether the receipt of revenue higher than the
prescribed annual revenue can justify departure from the
mandatory procedure;
(v) What is the effect of the inquiry reports
submitted pursuant to the directions of this Court;
(vi) What is the evidentiary value of the subsequent
process undertaken by the State during the pendency of
the writ petitions pursuant to the order of this Court;
and,
(vii) To what relief, if any, is the petitioner
entitled.”
35. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at
length, and considered the pleadings, the original records
produced before the Court, the Excise Policy 2025-28, the
General Instructions dated 03.02.2026 issued by the Excise
Commissioner, and the inquiry reports submitted pursuant to
the directions of this Court, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the impugned action cannot be sustained in law.
20
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
36. At the outset, it needs to be noticed that the
controversy before the Court is not whether the State is
entitled to maximize its revenue, while dealing with its
exclusive privilege in intoxicants. The law in this regard is
well-settled by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court
in Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. (supra), wherein it was
held that no one has any fundamental right to trade in liquor
and the State is entitled to evolve an appropriate policy for
grant of licenses with a view to securing optimum revenue.
Equally well-settled, however, is the principle that the State,
while pursuing the objective of revenue maximization,
remains bound by the constitutional mandate of fairness,
transparency and non-arbitrariness. The revenue
considerations cannot justify departure from the procedures
prescribed by the Government itself.
37. The Excise Policy 2025-28 has been issued by the
State in exercise of its rule making power under Section 40 of
the U.P. Excise Act, 1910. It is a complete code regulating
renewal as well as settlement of retail liquor shops.
38. Rule 1.1(2) provides that shops remaining
unsettled after completion of the renewal process, shall be
21
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
settled in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the
Policy: firstly, through lottery; secondly, on first-come, first-
serve basis, and; thirdly, on basis of maximum offers. The
detailed procedure governing each of these modes is
contained in Rules 2.1 to 2.4. 1.1(2) and Rules 2.1 to 2.4 are
reproduced below:-
“1.1(2) नवीनीकरण के प�ात् अवशेष अ�वस्थािपत देशी/ िवदेशी
म�दरा दुकान� म� पुन�नर्धारण करते �ए नीित म� दी गयी ���या के अनुसार (लाटरी,
�थम आवक �थम पावक एवं अिधकतम ऑफर) म�दरा दुकान� का �वस्थापन
राजस्व िहत म� �कया जायेगा।
2.1 िव�ीय 2024 -25 मे संचािलत म�दरा क� दुकान� मे अनुज्ञापी य�द
िव�ीय वषर् 2025 -26 एवं आगामी िव�ीय वषर् 2026 -27 एवं 2027 -28 हेतु
िनधार्�रत राजस्व पर म�दरा दुकान संचालन/ नवीनीकरण के िलए इच्छु क है, तो अहर्
आवेदक �ारािनधार्�रत �ा�प म� मय शपथ प� आवेदन करने पर िजलािधकारी /
िजला आबकारी अिधकारी क� आख्या पर आबकारी आयु� �ारा अंितम िनणर्य िलया
जायेगा।
2.2 नवीनीकरण क� ���या के प�ात अवशेष अ�वस्थािपत म�दरा दुकान�
का �वस्थापन दो चरण क� लॉटरी ���या के माध्यम से �कया जाएगा।
2.3 उपरो� दोन� चरण� के प�ात अवशेष अ�वस्थािपत म�दरा दुकान�
को पूणर् राजस्व पर �ा� करने के इच्छु क आवेदक को िजलािधकारी के समक्ष आवदेन
�स्तुत करना होगा तथा िजलािधकारी �थम आवक �थम पावक के िस�ान्त पर
दुकान का आवंटन कर�गे।
2.4 उपरो� समस्त चरण� के प�ात अवशेष अ�वस्थािपत म�दरा दुकान�
का �वस्थापन िजलािधकारी / िजला आबकारी अिधकारी �ारा ऑफर आमंि�त कर
आबकारी आयु� को �ेिषत �कया जायेगा, िजस पर आबकारी आयु� �ारा िनणर्य
िलया जा सके गा।”
39. A conjoint reading of these provisions unmistakably
demonstrates that they are not independent alternatives
available to the authorities at their discretion. Rather, they
22
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
constitute successive stages of one integral process. Renewal
is the first stage. If renewal does not materialize, settlement
is to be attempted through lottery. If lottery also fails, the
settlement is to be made on ‘first come first serve’ basis.
Invitation of maximum offers is contemplated only thereafter
in respect of shops which remain unsettled through the afore-
said three modes.
40. Any other interpretation would render the elaborate
provisions contained in Rules 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4 wholly
redundant. It is a settled principle of interpretation that
every provision of a statutory instrument must be given its
due meaning and no clause should be construed in a manner
which renders another provision otiose.
41. Rule 1.1(2) merely identifies the permissible modes
of settlement; the manner and sequence in which those
modes are to be adopted is prescribed in the successive
provisions of Rules 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.
42. The principal defence urged on behalf of the
respondents is founded upon Rule 42 of the Excise Policy.
According to the State, Rule 42 empowered the Excise
Commissioner to dispense with the normal procedure and
23
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
straightaway resort to settlement through maximum offers in
order to secure higher revenue.
43. The submission cannot be accepted.
44. Rule 42 is as follows:-
“42. थोक एवं खुदरा अनुज्ञापन�, आसवािनय� व बॉट�लंग ईकाई के संचालन म�
�वहा�रक क�ठनाई आती है और इसके सम्बन्ध म� आबकारी नीित िवषयक िनयमावली या
अन्य सुसंगत िनयमावली म� �ािवधान नह� है तब ऐसी दशा म� आबकारी आयु� �ारा �देश
के राजस्विहत म� िनणर्य िलया जा सके गा।”
45. Power vested in the Excise Commissioner under
Rule 42 is clearly residuary in nature. It is intended to meet
situations where the Policy does not provide for a particular
contingency or where difficulties arise in implementation
thereof. A residuary provision supplements the substantive
provisions; it cannot override them. Where the Policy itself
prescribes an elaborate mechanism governing settlement of
shops remaining un-renewed, Rule 42 cannot be invoked to
bypass the mandatory provisions of the Policy solely on the
ground that such course would generate a higher revenue.
46. In the present case, no vacuum existed in the
Policy. No unforeseen contingency had arisen. The
eventuality which arises upon expiry of the renewal period
was specifically dealt with in the Policy itself under Rules 2.1
to 2.4. The only reason assigned for invoking Rule 42 is that
24
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the afore-said three shops possess the potential of generating
higher revenue through competitive offers. That
circumstance, by itself, cannot constitute a practical difficulty
warranting exercise of the residuary power.
47. The conclusion receives considerable support from
the General Instructions dated 02.03.2026 issued by the
Excise Commissioner herself. Clauses 7, 11, 12, 36 and 55
prescribe the manner in which the shops remaining un-settled
after renewal are to be dealt with. They require preparation
of list of such shops, publication of comprehensive notice,
wide publicity through newspapers, departmental website and
public offices, scrutiny of applications and adherence to the
stages contemplated under the Excise Policy before the
process of inviting maximum offers is undertaken. The
aforesaid clauses are as follows:-
“7. नवीनीकरण के प�ात अ�वस्थािपत तथा नवसृिजत जनपद क� सी०एल०-5सी (देशी
शराव व बीयर) एवं एफ०एल०-5डी (िवदेशी म�दरा व बीयर) क� दुकानवार िनधार्�रत लाईस�स
फ�स एवं न्यूनतम गारन्टीड अिभकर (जो भी लागू हो) क� सूची शासन क� वेबसाईट
www.uk.gov.in एवं www.uttrakhandexcise.org.in िजला आबकारी अिधकारी कायार्लय
तथा कलेक्�ेट, तहसील एवं उप-तहसील, िवकासखण्ड तथा नगर पािलका कायार्लय� के नो�टस वोडर्
पर सावर्जिनक �दशर्न हेतु लगायी जायेगी। उ� म�दरा दुकान� के �वस्थापन हेतु �ापक �चार-
�सार करना भी सुिनि�त कर� गे।
11. नवीनीकरण के प�ात अवशेष रह गई म�दरा दुकान� के �वस्थापन हेतु जनपद के
राजस्व ल�य के सापेक्ष अवशेष राजस्व को सबंिधत म�दरा दुकान� म� तकर् संगत एवं वास्तिवक उठान
क्षमता के आधार पर पुन�नर्धार्�रत करते �ए म�दरा दुकान� का �वस्थापन िनधार्�रत कायर्�मानुसार
दो चरण क� लॉटरी ���या के माध्यम से �कया जायेगा। अवशेष म�दरा दुकान� के �वस्थापन हेतु
लॉटरी आ�द क� ���या हेतु िजला स्तरीय आवंटन सिमित के सदस्य एवं लाइस�स �ािधकारी /
िजलािधकारी �वस्थापन के समय स्वयं अिनवायर् �प से उपिस्थत रह�गे। लॉटरी ���या के प�ात25
UKHC0100828520262026:UHC:6944-DB
�थम आवक �थम पावक तथा अिधकतम ऑफर क� ���या म�दरा दुकान� के �वस्थापन हेतु
अपनाई जाएगी िजसके िलए िनधार्�रत समय सारणी के अनुसार कायर्वाही सुिनि�त क� जाएगी।
12. नवीनीकरण के प�ात अवशेष अ�वस्थािपत म�दरा दुकान के िलये �ा� आवेदन प��
को एक पंिजका म� पंजीकृ त �कया जायेगा। पंिजका के पंजीयन संख्या को आवेदन प� क� रसीद म�
अं�कत करके आवेदक को यह रसीद उपलब्ध करा दी जायेगी तथा इन मूल रसीद� को पहचान प�
मानकर आवेदक को लॉटरी के िलये िनधार्�रत हाल म� �वेश क� अनुमित दी जाएगी। �ा� आवेदन�
क� कम्प्यूटर म� भी �िवि� क� जायेगी। लॉटरी / चयन ���या के समय आवेदक स्वयं उपिस्थत रहेगा
के वल अप�रहायर् िस्थित म� आवेदक क� अनुपिस्थित म� उसका अिधकृ त �ितिनिध नोटराइज्ड
�ािधकार प� के साथ ही मान्य हो सके गा, अन्यथा क� िस्थित म� आवेदक को उसक� धरोहर धनरािश
जब्त कर चयन क� ���या से बाहर �कया जा सके गा।
36. लॉटरी ���या के प�ात िनधार्�रत वा�षर्क राजस्व पर �थम आवक �थम पावक के
िस�ांत पर दुकान का आवंटन �कया जाएगा। य�द इस ���या म� कोई दुकान अ�वस्थािपत रह
जाती है, तो िजला आबकारी अिधकारी �ारा अ�वस्थािपत म�दरा दुकान� को �वस्थािपत करने
हेतु िनधार्�रत राजस्व के सापेक्ष सावर्जिनक िवज्ञि� के माध्यम से ऑफर आमंि�त �कए जाएंगे तथा
अिधकतम ऑफरदाता के पक्ष म� िजलािधकारी / िजला आबकारी अिधकारी क� आख्या पर आबकारी
आयु� �ारा िनणर्य िलया जाएगा, दुकान के राजस्व क� गणना वास्तिवक �दवस� के िहसाब से
आवंटन क� ितिथ से क� जाएगी।
55. नवीनीकरण के उपरांत अ�वस्थािपत म�दरा दुकान� हेतु राजस्व का पुन�नर्धार्रण कर
जनपद म�दरा दुकान� का राजस्व से संबंिधत समस्त ब्यौरा कायार्लय आबकारी आयु� को �ेिषत
कर� गे ता�क �वस्थापन के िलए जनपद� हेतु सामूिहक िवज्ञि� समाचार प�� म� �कािशत क�
जाएगी। जनपद अपने स्तर पर िवज्ञि� जारी ना कर� । अप�रहायर् िस्थितय� एवं राजस्व िहत म�
आबकारी आयु� से अनुमित उपरांत जनपद िवज्ञि� जारी कर सक� गे।”
48. These instructions are contemporaneous executive
directions issued by the very authority who, subsequently,
invoked Rule 42. They demonstrate that, according to the
own understanding of the Department, settlement by
maximum offer is not intended to be the immediate
consequence of failure of renewal. It is only the last stage of
the process after the earlier modes have been exhausted.
49. The respondents have placed much reliance on the
publication dated 18.02.2026 in contending that adequate
26
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
publicity had been given before settlement by maximum
offers.
50. This Court has carefully examined the said
publication. The publication merely stated that the process of
settlement of retail liquor shops was underway and that
further information could be obtained from the office of the
District Excise Officer or from the departmental website.
Significantly, it did not invite applications nor any offers.
Even the names of the shops proposed to be settled have not
been mentioned. The publication did not even prescribe the
eligibility conditions, the mode of participation, the Authority
before whom applications were to be submitted or the last
date for submission of the offers. Such publication cannot, by
any accepted standard, be regarded as a public invitation
intended to generate effective competition. A man of
ordinary prudence reading the publication would not
understand that the applications or competitive offers were
being invited in respect of any identified liquor shop. At best,
the publication conveyed that some process was in progress.
51. The argument that complete particulars were
available on the departmental website is specious. Unless the
advertisement itself informs intending participants that
27
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
applications are invited, there is no occasion for members of
the public to search the departmental website. The object of
a public advertisement is not merely to disseminate
information but to ensure that every eligible person receives
adequate notice of the opportunity so that genuine
competition is generated. The publication dated 18.02.2026
utterly failed to achieve the said object.
52. There is another circumstance which totally
demolishes the defence advanced by the respondents. The
record reveals that in respect of other liquor shops in
different districts of the State, which remained unsettled, the
respondents themselves followed the procedure contemplated
under Rule 3.17 of the Excise Policy and Clause 55 of the
General Instructions. A comprehensive public advertisement
dated 16.03.2026 was issued inviting applications. The said
advertisement specifically identified the shops proposed to be
settled, prescribed the eligibility conditions, disclosed the
relevant particulars and invited participation from all
interested persons after giving wide publicity. The contrast
between the two exercises is too glaring to escape notice.
Whereas remaining unsettled shops across the State were
dealt with by adopting the elaborate procedure prescribed
under the Excise Policy and the General Instructions, only the
28
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
three shops in District Dehradun, including the two shops in
dispute in the present writ petitions were subjected to an
entirely different procedure by resorting to Rule 42. The
respondents have not disclosed any rational basis for such
differential treatment. There is no material on record, not
even whisper, that any attempt was made in respect of shops
remaining unrenewed in other districts to explore whether
they had the potential to generate higher revenue and,
therefore, should straightaway be settled on basis of
maximum offer, as in the instant case.
53. The state-wide advertisement dated 16.03.2026, in
respect of unrenewed shops of other districts, is significant
for yet another reason. If Rule 42, indeed, conferred an
unbridled power in favour of the Excise Commissioner to
abandon the prescribed procedure, whenever the authorities
anticipated higher revenue, there was no reason for the
respondents themselves to issue a detailed advertisement
dated 16.03.2026 in respect of other shops and to adhere to
the three stage procedure prescribed under the Policy. Their
subsequent conduct, therefore, belies the interpretation now
sought to be given to Rule 42. The Court is, therefore,
unable to accept the contention that the procedure adopted in
29
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the present case was permissible under the Excise Policy, or
any such discretion was vested in the Excise Commissioner.
54. Equally significant is the extraordinary haste with
which the entire exercise was completed. The renewal
process was closed on 16.02.2026. On the very next day,
the District Excise Officer submitted his report and the Excise
Commissioner invoked Rule 42. The publication was issued
on 18.02.2026, offers were allegedly received within next few
days and recommendation for settlement was followed
immediately thereafter. Thus, within a remarkably short
span, the Authorities, not only decided to abandon the
prescribed procedure, but also succeeded in concluding the
process of settlement.
55. The unusual haste with which the Authorities have
proceeded viewed together with no proper public invitation,
coupled with the departure from the prescribed procedure
leads to irresistible conclusion that the process adopted was
not fair, but deliberately kept opaque, to exclude meaningful
public participation and genuine competition.
56. The above conclusion stands further reinforced by
the inquiry conducted pursuant to the orders of this Court.
The reports submitted by the District Magistrate
30
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
acknowledged that Rule 1.1(2) read with Rules 2.1 to 2.4
contemplated a sequential procedure for settlement of shops
remaining un-renewed. The reports unequivocally state that
the prescribed procedure was not followed before directing for
settlement of shops through maximum offers and that Rule
42 could not have been invoked, where the Policy itself
contained specific procedure to meet the contingency.
57. It is true that the report seeks to justify the
departure on the ground that higher revenue was likely to be
realized. However, that explanation cannot dilute the factual
findings recorded therein. The respondents’ own inquiry
substantially supports the petitioner’s contention that the
mandatory procedure prescribed under the Excise Policy and
the General Instructions was not adhered to.
58. The aforesaid conclusions, in the opinion of the
Court, are sufficient to invalidate the impugned action.
However, as noted in the foregoing part of the judgment, an
important development took place during pendency of the
writ petitions and which has significant bearing on the relief
to be granted.
59. Throughout the proceedings, the consistent stand
of the respondents has been that the procedure adopted by
31
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
them, though in deviation of procedure prescribed under the
Excise Policy, enabled the State to secure the highest possible
revenue. Revenue maximization has, thus, been sheet-
anchor of the defence set-up by the respondents.
60. Having regard to the said stand and without
expressing any final opinion on merits of the controversy, this
Court on the suggestion of the learned Advocate General
permitted the State to invite all eligible persons to make
offers. The purpose of granting such liberty was not to
validate or invalidate the earlier process, but to objectively
ascertain whether the respondents’ assertion that by
following the impugned process, the respondents have
succeeded in generating maximum revenue, is correct or not.
61. As already noted, pursuant to the liberty granted,
the State issued public advertisement on 16.07.2026 inviting
offers from all interested persons. The process witnessed
participation of several eligible bidders and culminated in
receipt of fresh offers and counter-offers. The outcome of the
subsequent exercise is very significant. The highest offers
received, pursuant to fresh invitation, are almost of double
the value at which the subject shops had been settled under
the impugned process.
32
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
62. While we are conscious of the fact that the
impugned administrative action cannot be adjudged wholly on
the basis of the subsequent developments, but undoubtedly,
the same totally demolishes the defence that the process
followed was a bonafide exercise to generate maximum
revenue. On the contrary, the subsequent events, objectively
demonstrate that the market response was significantly
higher when the State adopted a genuinely transparent
procedure after extending equal opportunity to all intending
participants. The subsequent process lends substantial
support to the conclusion already reached by this Court that
the publication dated 18.02.2026 was merely an eye-wash
and did not generate meaningful competition. It furnishes
objective corroboration to the finding arrived at by this Court
that the impugned process was not fair and did not generate
effective competition, nor elicited the best possible market
response.
63. The record of the proceedings before us further
reveals certain glaring facts which cannot escape notice:
(i) The In-charge District Excise Officer, by letter
No.3424, dated 17.02.2026 forwarded a report to the
Excise Commissioner enclosing the particulars of the
33
UKHC0100828520262026:UHC:6944-DB
applications received upto 16.02.2026 in respect of
Indian Made Foreign Liquor vends, country-made liquor
vends, and the three IMFL outlets, for which, according
to the report, no applications had been received.
(ii) The record also contains another report of the
same date, bearing letter No.3426, submitted by the
same officer, to the Excise Commissioner. It is similarly
worded except for addition of one more paragraph
whereby it was stated that discussions were held with
the existing licensees and other persons in relation to
the three IMFL vends, for which, renewal applications
had not been received and from which, it transpired that
there was probability of fetching higher revenue for the
said shops than that prescribed. Although, the report
also mentions the value of higher offers received during
the course of such discussions, but surprisingly, there is
no such higher offer on record. Further, as already
noted, on the same date, the Excise Commissioner vide
letter No.23906, dated 17.02.2026, even proceeded to
grant approval for allotment of these three shops on
basis of maximum revenue invoking Rule 42. On the
very next day, i.e. 18.02.2026, she approved the notice
34
UKHC0100828520262026:UHC:6944-DB
for publication in newspapers, which as already
discussed, did not amount to a valid publication.
64. Another noteworthy fact is that, in the report
submitted by the In-charge District Excise Officer on
23.02.2026 vide letter No.3526 to the Excise Commissioner
regarding receipt of offers on basis of revenue higher than
that prescribed, there is no mention of any advertisement in
pursuance of which, the offers were received. It only refers
to the order of the Excise Commissioner vide letter No.23906,
dated 17.02.2026 as the basis on which the offers were
received. This clearly indicates that even the In-charge
District Excise Officer was conscious of the fact that there had
been no public invitation of offers, nor did the notice dated
18.02.2026, bearing No.23928, amount to an invitation of
offers from the public.
65. Another important facet of the entire exercise
which needs to be noticed is that, although four offers each
were allegedly received in respect of two IMFL outlets in
dispute, they were all very close to each other, with a
difference of merely a few hundred or a few thousand rupees.
The higher offer allegedly received in respect of the shop at
Rajpur Road (near RTO) was in sum of Rs.9,00,70,000/- for
35
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the year 2026-27 and Rs.9,30,14,000/- for the year 2027-28.
After the alleged public invitation of offers, Pyare Lal
submitted a bid of Rs. 9,00,80,000/- for the financial year
2026-27 and Rs.9,30,14,009/- for the year 2027-28.
Another bidder, Bhanu Karnwal, allegedly submitted a bid of
Rs.9,00,79,500/- for the financial year 2026-27 and
Rs.9,30,14,100/- for the year 2027-28. Kush Walia
submitted a bid for Rs.9,00,78,000/- for the year 2026-27
and Rs.9,30,14,030/- for the year 2027-28. Vinay, the
successful bidder (respondent no.5 herein) submitted a bid of
Rs.9,00,81,125/- for the financial year 2026-27 and
Rs.9,30,15,450/- for the year 2027-28. Likewise, the higher
offer allegedly received in respect of the shop at Dalanwala
(Parade Ground) was in sum of Rs.10,00,90,000/- for the
year 2026-27 and was Rs.10,20,60,000/- for the year 2027-
28. Shrikant Kala submitted a bid of Rs.10,00,93,000/- for
the year 2026-27 and Rs.10,20,58,000/- for the year 2027-
28; Naveen Chopra submitted a bid of Rs.10,00,95,000/- for
the year 2026-27 and Rs.10,20,50,000/- for the year 2027-
28; Himanshu Gupta submitted a bid of Rs.10,00,94,250/-
for the year 2026-27 and Rs.10,20,40,000/- for the year
2027-28. Deepesh, the successful bidder (respondent no.5
36
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
herein) submitted a bid of Rs.10,00,95,124/- for the year
2026-27 and Rs.10,20,60,000/- for the year 2027-28.
66. It is indeed a matter of surprise that there was
hardly any difference in the bids received from different
persons. This also leaves the Court wondering whether the
offerers were genuine or whether the bidders had formed a
cartel and were aware of the bids of each other.
67. As per the provisions contained in the Excise Policy
and the General Instructions, the District Level Committee for
licensing consists of the Collector of the District as its
Chairman, one Gazetted Officer nominated by the Excise
Commissioner as Member, and the District Excise Officer of
the District as another Member, who also functions as the
Secretary of the Committee. The power to scrutinize the
applications and to approve applications for renewal and
settle shops is vested in the said Committee, except in cases,
where even after exhausting all the modes prescribed under
the Excise Policy, the shops could not be settled.
Consequently, the offers which were presumably received
pursuant to the approval granted by the Excise Commissioner
on 17.02.2026, were placed before the District Level
Committee. There is on record two reports of the said
37
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
Committee. One pertains to the applicants in whose favour
recommendations were made for renewal, and the other
relates to recommendations made pursuant to the directions
of the Excise Commissioner dated 17.02.2026, under which
the shops were to be settled on basis of maximum revenue.
None of these two reports mention the date on which the
proceedings of the Committee were allegedly held. However,
in the report prepared by the Committee in respect of
renewal of licenses, the District Magistrate while affixing his
signature, has mentioned the date on which he presumably
signed the report as 28.02.2026. Just above his signature,
he has endorsed- “as scrutinized and proposed”. In the other
report prepared by the Committee, again there is no mention
of any date on which the proceedings were held. Again, while
signing the said report, the District Magistrate has mentioned
the date as 28.02.2026. The most interesting part is the
endorsement made by the District Magistrate on the said
report while signing it, which is as follows:-
“Based on आयु� discrete recommendation and direction issued
vide order no.24505, dated 25-02-26 & 23906, dated 17-02-26, the
office may proceed further.”
68. What “discrete recommendation” was made by
the Excise Commissioner to the District Magistrate pertaining
to settlement of three IMFL outlets is something which leaves
38
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the Court wondering. In her affidavit, the Excise
Commissioner has failed to disclose the nature of the
“discrete recommendation” made by her to the Committee,
relying on which, the Committee made recommendation for
allotment of the shops in dispute in favour of the private
respondents.
69. Another feature of the case is that, although the
allottees of the two shops are different persons, and it is also
so portrayed before this Court, the petitioner has specifically
averred in Paragraph No.58 of his rejoinder-affidavit that both
shops are being operated in the common name “Liquor Fort”.
He has also brought on record photographs of both the shops,
and the allegations made by the petitioner in this regard have
remained uncontroverted. This also lends credence to the
doubt in the mind of the Court that though the allotments
have been made in the name of different persons, the actual
beneficiary is a cartel. This circumstance also, to a great
extent, fortifies the allegation made by the petitioners that
the entire exercise was carried out at the behest of the Excise
Commissioner.
70. The record also reveals interpolation. As noticed
above, under the Excise Policy and the General Instructions,
39
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
the scrutiny of the applications/ proposals is required to be
undertaken by the District Level Committee. However, the
record shows that the District Excise Officer examined the
proposals himself, accepted some and rejected others. He
purportedly did so on basis of the direction issued by the
Excise Commissioner vide letter No.24505, dated 25.02.2026.
Below his endorsement, the District Excise Officer has put the
date as 25.02.2026.
71. However, the record shows that the meeting of the
District Level Committee was held on 28.02.2026, as is
evident from the date recorded beneath the signature of the
District Magistrate on the minutes of the proceedings. The
proposals, therefore, could not have been considered before
that date.
72. It appears that the District Excise Officer, after
noticing that District Magistrate had put the date, altered the
date of his endorsement from 25.02.2026 to 28.02.2026.
The interpolation is uniform across all the proposals and is
plainly visible. This unmistakenly shows that the record was
subsequently manipulated to bring the endorsement in
conformity with the date of the Committee meeting.
40
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
73. The petitioner asserts that his application for
renewal was submitted within the prescribed time, but was
not acknowledged or entered in the register. He relies upon
e-mails allegedly sent on 17.02.2026, the day immediately
following the closure of the renewal process, to the offices of
the District Magistrate, District Excise Officer, the Excise
Commissioner as well as the Principal Secretary, Excise.
The respondents, however, dispute the receipt of the
application.
74. The dispute as to whether the petitioner had, in
fact, submitted the renewal application is essentially a
question of fact. Even assuming, in favour of the
respondents, that no valid renewal application had been
submitted, the authorities were not thereby empowered to
bypass the procedure prescribed under the Excise Policy and
proceed straightaway to allot the shops on the basis of
maximum revenue. Thus, even if the petitioner ultimately
fails to establish any enforceable right for renewal, he is
nevertheless entitled to question the legality of the allotment
that it was made in violation of the Excise Policy and the
General Instructions. The challenge, therefore, raises a
broader issue concerning adherence to the prescribed method
in the disposal of a valuable State privilege.
41
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
75. For this reason, while it would not be appropriate,
on the present material, to direct the authorities to renew the
license of the petitioner, it would equally not preclude the
Court from setting-aside the impugned allotment.
76. Learned counsel for respondent no.5 vehemently
contended that communication of the Excise Commissioner
dated 17.02.2026 was not an allotment in favour of
respondent no.5. The petitioner had misled this Court into
believing that it was allotment of shop in favour of
respondent no.5 and succeeded in obtaining interim order on
basis of the said misrepresentation. Consequently, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
77. We have given our anxious consideration to the
above submission. Although, the communication dated
17.02.2026 did not itself finally allot the shop in favour of the
private respondent, but in the facts and circumstances of the
instant case, it cannot be said to be an innocuous preliminary
communication. It constituted the foundational decision to
bypass the procedure prescribed and settle the three shops
through maximum offers. The respondents’ own pleadings
show that pursuant to the report of District Excise Officer, the
District Excise Commissioner, by impugned communication,
42
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
directed the three shops to be settled at the maximum
possible revenue and that this direction led directly to the
allotment of the shop in favour of the private respondent. A
challenge to the foundational decision necessarily brings the
consequential order under scrutiny. The petitioner’s
description of the order dated 17.02.2026 as an allotment
order may be technically imprecise, but the same does not
alter the substance of the challenge or amount to such mis-
statement as should result in dismissal of the writ petition.
78. The respondents have also made extensive
allegation against the petitioner and his family members that
over several years, they have succeeded in obtaining licenses
of multiple liquor shops by adopting sharp practices. These
allegations do not answer the core issue. If any earlier
allotment has been obtained by the petitioners or any
member of his/ her family illegally, collusively or by
misrepresentation, the competent authority is free to initiate
proceedings in accordance with law. However, these
allegations against the petitioners would not legalize the
present exercise.
79. The petitioner, in turn, has also alleged that
respondent no.5 secured the allotment under political
43
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
influence. It is alleged, he is connected with a Minister and
that allotment was obtained by exercising undue political
influence. We refrain ourselves from expressing any opinion
on these allegations, as according to us, the petitions can be
decided without recording any finding on these allegations.
The allotment is liable to be struck down on basis of the
discussion made hereinabove.
80. Another contention of the respondents has been
delay and laches in advancing the challenge. In this regard,
it is noteworthy that the license in question was granted for
two financial years. The allotment, as held above, is found to
be contrary to the Excise Policy and also appears to be an
outcome of extraneous considerations. Where the action is
found to be arbitrary and an outcome of colorable exercise of
power, this Court would not decline relief merely on basis of a
delay of few months in approaching this Court.
81. Before parting, we would also deal with an
objection made by Mr. U.K. Uniyal, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the petitioners. He submitted that offer of
Neha Watsal Chopra is not liable to be considered as the
Court had permitted the State to invite only the petitioner,
the respondent, and other bidders who earlier submitted the
44
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
bids, to participate in the tender process in pursuance of
order dated 16.07.2026.
82. However, we find no force in the submission. In
our order dated 16.07.2026, while we noted the submission
of the learned Advocate General that State would call the
petitioner, respondent no.5 and other bidders, the Court nor
the State ever intended to exclude other persons from
participating in the final exercise to be undertaken by the
State. The advertisement issued by the State reveals that
the State, in all propriety, invited applications from the
general public and permitted only those to participate who
deposited the EMD and relevant documents. In fact, if the
exercise would have been confined to only the petitioners and
those who had made bids earlier, it would have resulted in
perpetuation of the same illegality which was committed
earlier, namely, absence of proper advertisement and the
consequent denial of equal opportunity to all eligible persons
desirous of participating in the process.
83. Having regard to the discussion made above, the
writ petitions are disposed of as follows:-
(i) The order of the Excise Commissioner dated
17.02.2026 and all consequential actions, including
45
UKHC0100828520262026:UHC:6944-DB
allotment of shops in dispute in favour of private
respondents, shall stand set-aside and quashed.
(ii) The District Magistrate, who is the Chairman of the
District Level Committee, shall place all the offers
received in pursuance of the exercise undertaken by the
State on basis of advertisement dated 16.07.2026 as
well as offers and counter-offers received in the present
proceedings before the Committee for consideration and
for appropriate decision within one week.
(iii) In case, the offers submitted by respondent no.5
are accepted, they shall be permitted to resume their
operations on basis of fresh offers. In case, however,
offer of some other party is accepted, the license fees
and the security deposit of respondent no.5 shall be
refunded within next one week. They shall also not be
charged the minimum monthly guaranteed duty since
the date they could not operate the shops, and in case,
any amount had been received from them on that count,
the same shall also be refunded to them positively within
one week. The remaining stock of liquor, if any, in the
hands of respondent no.5 shall also be taken back and
disposed of in terms of Rule 17 of the Settlement Rules,
2000.
46
UKHC010082852026
2026:UHC:6944-DB
(iv) The amounts deposited by the petitioners in
pursuance of the orders of this Court shall be refunded
to them.
84. A copy of the instant order shall be forwarded by
the Registry to the Chief Secretary for enquiry and
appropriate action in accordance with law.
85. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 06th August 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT Digitally signed by NISHANT KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00ec2b7462b452b326,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
KUMAR
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A055CFD1961690560487E6
70C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2026.08.06 11:15:49 +05’30’
47
