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, Uttara khand 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 Go vernment 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.

No.

Name of

IMFL

Shop

Prescribed

Revenue for

Financial

Year 2026-

27

Value of

offer

received

Prescribed

Revenue for Financial

Year 2027-

28

Value of

offer

received

1. Rajpur

Road (near

R.T.O.)

8,69,84,820 9,00,70,000 9,04,64,213 9,30,14,000

2. Dalanwala

(Parade

Ground)

9,57,08,343 10,00,90,000 9,95,36,677 10,20,60,000

3. G.M.S.

Road

12,70,33,668 13,00,60,000 13,21,15,015 13,40,18,000

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 invit ing

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, �हंदुस्तान,

उ�र उजाला, पंजाब केसरी 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 respondent s 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 Pro vinces 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 therea fter

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 consideration s. 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 f urther 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 0 7.03.2026. 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 sa id 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 ope n 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 a re 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 pr ocess 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 f or 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 direct ions 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 notice d that the

controversy before the Court is not whether the Stat e 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 on e 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 obje ctive 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 com e 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�ात

25

UKHC010082852026

2026: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� पंजीकृत �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 escap e 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, o nly 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 t ransparent

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

UKHC010082852026

2026: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 Ru le 42. On the

very next day, i.e. 18.02.2026, she approved the notice

34

UKHC010082852026

2026: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 we re

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 pres umably

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, t he 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 t he 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 all otment

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 p etitioners 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 approachi ng 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, i f 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 c onsequential actions, including

45

UKHC010082852026

2026: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: 06

th

August 2026

NISHANT

47