HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w

WP(C) No. 735/2025

WP(C) No. 1106/2025

WP(C) No. 637/2026

WP(C) No. 757/2026

WP(C) No. 1951/2026

Reserved on: 12.08.2026

Pronounced on: 20.08.2026

Uploaded on: 20.08.2026

Whether the operative part or

full judgment is pronounced: FULL

WP (C) No. 234/2026

1. Jai Dev Kaalra, Age 60 years

S/o Narain Dass Kalra

R/o H.No. 91-A/D, Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu.

2. Sanchit Mahajan Age 31 years

S/o Raman Gupta

R/o 32 AB Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

…..Petitioner(s)

Through: Mr. Gagan Basotra, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate

Vs.

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Commissioner/Secretary

Revenue Department

Civil Secretariat, Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

2. District Magistrate, Jammu

3. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu

4. Additional Deputy Commissioner,

Jammu

5. Excise Commissioner UT of J&K, Rail

Head Complex, Jammu

6. Varun Gupta, S/o Lt. Sh. Arun Kumar

R/o 31 A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

Through:

.…. Respondent(s)

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate for R-1-5.

2 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

Mr. Amit Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate for R-6.

WP(C) No. 735/2025

1. Varun Gupta, Age-46 years

S/o Lt. Sh. Arun Kumar

R/o 31 A/B Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

2. Dinesh Kumar Age-55 years

S/o Lt. Sh. Nek Ram

R/o H.No. 203, Rampura

Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

Through:

Vs.

1. UT of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Commissioner/Secretary

Finance Department,

Civil Secretariat, J&K,

Jammu.

2. Excise Commissioner,

J&K Government,

Srinagar/Jammu

3. Deputy Commissioner

Jammu

4. Additional District Magistrate

Wazarat Road, Jammu

5. Sub-Divisional Magistrate

Jammu South

6. Sanchit Mahajan

R/o 32A/B, Gandhi Nagar,

Jammu

Through:

WP(C) No. 1106/2025

1. Kul Bhushan Jandial, IAS (Retd), Age- 75

years S/o Late Sh. Mani Ram Jandial

R/o 63 A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-180004

Through:

Vs.

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir,

…..Petitioner(s)

Mr. Amit Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate.

.…. Respondent(s)

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate for

R-1 to 5.

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for R-6.

….Petitioner(s)

Mr. Rahul Pant, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Anirudh Sharma, Advocate.

3 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

Through Commissioner/Secretary to

Government, Finance Department, Jammu &

Kashmir Government, Civil Secretariat,

Jammu

2. Excise Commissioner, Jammu and Kashmir

Government Excise Department Excise and

Taxation Complex, Rail Head, Jammu.

3. Deputy Excise Commissioner (Executive)

Excise Department, Excise & Taxation

Complex, Rail Head, Jammu

4. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu.

5. Sanchit Mahajan

(Licensee-JKEL-2)

S/o Sh. Raman Gupta

32-A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

Through:

WP(C) No. 637/2026

1. Pritam Singh, Age 65 years

S/o Sh. Nathu Ram

R/o Bharat Garh, Papar, Nai Kali, Tehsil

Samba, District Samba.

2. Jail Dev Kaalra, Age 60 Years

S/o Narian Dass Kaalra

R/o H.No. 91-A/D Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

Through:

Vs.

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Commissioner/Secretary

Revenue Department

Civil Secretariat, Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

2. District Magistrate, Jammu

3. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu

4. Excise Commissioner, UT of J&K, Rail Head

Complex, Jammu

5. Excise and Taxation Officer

Excise Range South, Jammu

6. Excise Inspector, Excise Range,

South Jammu

7. Mr. Varun Gupta, S/o Lt. Arun Kumar R/o 31

A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

….Respondent(s)

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate for

R-1 to 4.

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for R-5.

…..Petitioner(s)

Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J. I. Balwan, Advocate.

.…. Respondent(s)

4 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

Through:

WP(C) No. 757/2026

1. Sumaksh Mahajan, Aged 40 years

S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta,

R/o 32 A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-180004.

2. Sushant Kalra; aged 32 years

S/o Sh. Jail Dev Kalra

R/o 102 A/D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-180004

3. Anuja Gupta, aged 60 years

W/o Sh. Raman Gupta, R/o H.No. 32 A/B,

Gandhi Nagar, Jammu-180004.

4. Ankit Mahajan; aged 34 years

S/o Sh. Raman Gupta,

R/o H.No. 32 A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

180004

Through:

Vs.

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Commissioner/Secretary

Finance Department

Jammu & Kashmir, Government

Civil Secretariat, Jammu

2. Excise Commissioner

Jammu and Kashmir Government

Excise Department

Excise and Taxation Complex

Rail Head, Jammu

3. Deputy Excise Commissioner (Executive)

Excise Department

Excise and Taxation Complex

Rail Head, Jammu

4. District Magistrate/Deputy Commissioner.

Jammu

5. Jammu Municipal Corporation

Through its Commissioner

Town Hall Jammu, Jammu

6. Smt. Renu Gupta

(Licenseee-JKEL-2)

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate for R- 1 to

6.

Mr. Amit Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate for R-7.

…..Petitioner(s)

Mr. Rahil Raja, Advocate.

5 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

W/o Sh. Chandan Gupta

R/o 90-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

7. Sh. Munish Gupta

(Licensee-JKEL-4)

S/o Sh. Bansi Lal Gupta

R/o 90-A, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

Proprietor: M/S Royal Group Trading Corp.

Gole Market, Near Pahalwan Di Hatii, Gandhi

Nagar, Jammu

Through:

WP(C) No. 1951/2026

1. Pritam Singh, Age 65 years

S/o Sh. Nathu Ram

R/o Bharat Garh, Papar, Nai Kali,

Tehsil Samba, District Samba.

Through:

Vs.

1. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

Through Commissioner/Secretary

Revenue Department

Civil Secretariat, Jammu and Kashmir

Jammu

2. District Magistrate, Jammu

3. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu

4. Excise Commissioner, UT of J&K, Rail Head

Complex, Jammu

5. Excise and Taxation Officer

Excise Range South, Jammu

6. Excise Inspector, Excise Range,

South Jammu

7. Varun Gupta, S/o Lt. Arun Kumar

R/o 31 A/B Gandhi Nagar, Jammu

Through:

…. Respondent(s)

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate for

R- 1 to 4.

Ms. Mehar Bali, Advocate vice

Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG for R-5.

Mr. D. C. Raina, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Anuj Dewan, Advocate for R-6.

Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate for R-7.

…. Petitioner(s)

Mr. Z. A. Shah, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J. I. Balwan, Advocate.

…..Respondent(s)

Mrs. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with

Ms. Nazia Fazal, Advocate for

R- 1 to 6.

Mr. Amit Gupta, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Sumit Moza, Advocate for R-7.

6 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. The present batch of petitions has been filed by the residents of the area, the

successful bidder, and the owners of the premises in which the liquor vend at

JMC Ward No. 20-D, Jammu, was operational. The controversy has led to the

filing of six writ petitions. Before considering the merits of the respective

cases of the parties, it would be appropriate to briefly advert to the facts and

circumstances leading to the filing of the aforesaid petitions. The Government

of Jammu and Kashmir, through the Office of the Excise Commissioner,

J&K, has been issuing licences for retail liquor vends (JKEL-2) by way of e-

auction on a yearly basis, commencing from 1st April of each year and ending

on 31st March of the succeeding year.

2. In terms of the Excise Policy, retail vends are allotted as individual units on a

yearly basis, whereby each licensed vend is authorised to sell J&K Special

Whisky, J&K Country Liquor, and Indian Made Foreign Liquor, including

imported foreign liquor, beer, wine, cider and RTD, under one roof. The bid is

confined to the licence fee, and the licences are granted for the locations

specified in the auction notice.

3. In terms of the prescribed eligibility criteria, a bidder should not be below 20

years of age, should be a domicile of the Union Territory of Jammu and

Kashmir, and should possess immovable property, besides satisfying the other

eligibility conditions prescribed under the Excise Act and the Rules/Policy

framed thereunder. Every bidder is under an obligation to make his own

7 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

arrangement for a shop/premises within the specified area, whether owned,

leased or rented. In case the successful bidder is unable to arrange suitable

premises at the notified location, he may arrange premises in an adjoining

Municipal Ward/Council area or at another suitable location, as permissible

under the Policy.

4. One of the conditions governing the grant of a vend licence is that a regular

licence in respect of newly identified/selected premises shall be issued only

after the issuance of a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by the concerned

District Magistrate, who is required to convey clearance or otherwise in

respect of the newly identified premises within a period of 15 days from the

receipt of the application from the H-1 bidder. The Policy, however, makes it

clear that, in order to ensure that no loss is caused to the Government revenue

on account of delay in the issuance of such NOC, no fresh clearance is

required in respect of premises selected in the bidding process where the

liquor vend had remained operational during the previous year.

5. In the aforesaid backdrop, the liquor vend at JMC Ward No. 20-D, Jammu,

for the financial year 2024-2025 was obtained by M/s Shashank Aggarwal, in

whose favour the requisite licence was issued. For the financial year 2025-

2026, the bid was successfully obtained by M/s Sanchit Mahajan, who was

granted temporary licence bearing No.39696/015/2025-2026. The grant of the

said temporary licence came to be questioned by the petitioners in WP(C) No.

735/2025, inter alia, on the ground that the residents of Gole Market, Gandhi

Nagar, had submitted a representation to the Excise Commissioner objecting

to the opening of the liquor vend, as the same was allegedly being operated

without obtaining clearance from the District Magistrate. It was further

8 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

alleged that the vend was situated in a residential area and its operation was

detrimental to the interests of the residents of the locality. The petitioners also

alleged that the operation of the vend was in violation of the earlier directions

issued by this Court.

6. It was further alleged that the owner of the premises had, in violation of the

municipal laws, converted the residential property into a commercial one and,

therefore, no liquor vend could legally be permitted to operate therefrom. It

was also pleaded that the premises in question were situated adjacent to

Ganpati Food Junction (Nathu Sweet Shop), and, therefore, the opening and

operation of the liquor vend were contrary to the provisions of the Excise Act

as well as the applicable Excise Policy.

7. In the said petition, no interim direction was passed. The respondent-Excise

Department, however, filed its objections contending, inter alia, that during

the previous financial year, i.e., 2024-2025, the premises in question had

already been used for running a wine shop and, therefore, in terms of Clause

2.3.8 of the Excise Policy, an NOC from the District Magistrate was not

required where a liquor vend had already remained operational from the same

premises during the preceding financial year. It was also the case of the

respondents that several other shops and premises situated in the same

complex were being used for commercial activities, to which the petitioners

had raised no objection. It was further contended that the petitioners had

failed to disclose infringement of any legal, fundamental or statutory right

warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The

writ petition was primarily founded on the plea that no NOC had been issued

by the District Magistrate and that the premises from which the liquor vend

9 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

was being operated belonged to the Housing Board and had originally been

allotted in the name of one Madan Gopal. It was also alleged that the

operation of the liquor shop was causing nuisance and disturbing peace and

tranquillity in the locality on account of the conduct of intoxicated persons in

the residential area.

8. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending consideration, the temporary

licence granted in favour of Sanchit Mahajan was also called in question by

four petitioners, claiming to be residents of the locality, by filing WP(C) No.

1106/2025. The petitioners therein raised substantially similar grounds,

alleging that the liquor vend was being operated in violation of the Excise

Policy and that the office of the District Magistrate had, in March 2025,

conveyed to the Excise Commissioner that no clearance had been granted for

opening the said liquor vend. The petitioners, therefore, assailed the grant of

the temporary licence. During the pendency of the said writ petition,

petitioner Nos. 1, 3 and 4 chose to withdraw from the proceedings, leaving

petitioner No. 2, a retired IAS Officer, as the sole petitioner pursuing the writ

petition.

9. In that petition also reply came to be filed by the Excise Department

reiterating the stand which they had led in WP(C) No. 735/2025. In that

petition also the status report was called by this Court in terms of order dated

23.05.2025 in response thereto the Excise Department had in para 4 of the

Status report recorded as under:

“4. That it is submitted that the above said communication

from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu has been

examined in the Department and it was found that the liquor

vend in the name and style of M/s Shashank Aggarwal Wine

Shop was operational last year at the premises without any

objections from the inhabitants of the area and accordingly,

10 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

the location was again notified for the grant and operation of

liquor vend at the same location in J&K Excise Policy 2025-

26. Moreover, there are also other liquor vends/commercial

establishments operational in the same locality without any

objections from any side, the liquor vend in question is

operational in the same building housing other commercial

shops/business establishment i.e. Nathu Sweet Shop (presently

Ganpati Food Junction) and KFC. It is submitted that there are

other liquor vends namely M/S Ansh Gupta Wine Shop, M/S

Vishesh Gupta, Wine Shop and M/S Vaneet Singh Wine Shop at

a distance of around 200 to 250 metres from the instant

premises in the same land and the same ward, besides M/s

Royal Group Trading Corp. Bar and Restaurant is operational

in the same vicinity without any sort of objections from the

inhabitants of the location. It is further submitted that para

2.3.8 of the J&K Excise Policy 2025-26 provides that no

clearance of District Magistrate shall be required for the

premises chosen by the H1 bidder where vends were

operational in previous years. The JKEL-2 vend at the location

has been granted strictly in accordance with the provisions of

Excise Act, Excise policy and rules made thereunder. The

relevant para 2.3.8 of the J&K Excise Policy 2024-25 is

reproduced as under:

“The bidder shall make his own arrangement for a

shop/premises in the specified area (owned/leased/rented).

The bidder shall ensure that the premises selected/identified

by him meet the requirements of the J&K Excise Act and

rules/Notifications made thereunder, including directions by

the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this regard and other

competent courts(s) of law, if any, the Bidder shall apply for

clearance of the premises from the District Magistrate after

being declared as H1. The regular license on the newly

identified/selected premises/shop shall be issued only after

getting clearance from the District Magistrate concerned.

The District Magistrate shall convey the clearance or

otherwise of the newly identified premises within a period of

15 days from the receipt of application from the H1 bidder, in

case of non-disposal of application, the premises shall be

deemed to have been cleared by the District Magistrate.

However, in order to ensure against any loss of revenue to

the Government, due to delays in operationalization of vends,

no clearance of District Magistrate shall be required for the

premises chosen by the H1 bidder where the vends were

operational in previous years”.

10. In the said petition, the licensee, Sanchit Mahajan, arrayed as respondent No.

5, also filed his reply, inter alia, contending that a wine shop being run in the

name of M/s Ansh Gupta at Gole Market, Gandhi Nagar, is situated at a

distance of about 15 metres from the residence of petitioner No. 2, yet the said

11 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

petitioner has raised no objection to its operation. On the other hand,

grievance has been raised against the liquor vend in question, which is

situated at a distance of about 200 metres from his residence. It was further

contended that petitioner No. 2 has raised no grievance against the aforesaid

wine shop, which is allegedly being operated from a residential house bearing

No. 63B-A/B, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. It was further averred that the writ

petition was nothing but a manifestation of proxy litigation instituted at the

behest of competitors of the licensee who are engaged in the same business.

11. While the aforesaid writ petitions were pending consideration, the landlord,

Jai Dev Kaalra, along with the licensee, Sanchit Mahajan also filed a writ

petition No.234/2026 seeking, inter alia, issuance of a writ of certiorari for

quashing the communication issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner,

Jammu, whereby, on 28.01.2026, the Excise Commissioner was informed

about multiple complaints received from the residents of the locality

regarding the functioning of the liquor vend being run by petitioner-Sanchit

Mahajan. It was further communicated to the Excise Commissioner that the

said liquor vend may be permitted to operate till the end of the financial year,

but thereafter the said location should not be permitted to be used for

operating the vend, keeping in view the complaints received from the

residents as also the alleged illegality in operating a commercial wine shop in

a residential area. In the said petition, this Court, vide order dated

07.02.2026, observed that since there was no imminent threat of closure of the

petitioners' liquor vend, which was to remain operational for the auction

period till the end of the financial year 2025-2026, no indulgence by this

Court was warranted at that stage. In the said petition, one of the residents,

namely, Varun Gupta, who is also a petitioner in WP(C) No. 735/2025,

12 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

moved an application seeking impleadment as a party respondent, which

application came to be allowed.

12. During the pendency of the aforesaid three writ petitions, the liquor vends,

which had remained operational during the financial years 2024-2025 and

2025-2026, continued to operate till 31.03.2026. Thereafter, in terms of the

Excise Policy applicable for the financial year 2026-2027, a fresh bidding

process was undertaken, in which Pritam Singh, petitioner in WP(C) No.

637/2026, emerged as the successful bidder. He, however, was not permitted

to operate the liquor vend from the premises in question in view of the

communication dated 28.01.2026 addressed by the District Administration to

the Excise Commissioner, which communication was also the subject matter

of challenge in the writ petition filed by Jai Dev Kalra and another.

13. Pritam Singh, therefore, filed WP(C) No. 637/2026, assailing the legality of

the communication issued by the Excise Department whereby, despite being

the successful bidder, he was advised to identify alternative premises for

running the liquor vend for the financial year 2026-2027. In the said

communication, reference was made to the fact that the liquor vend had

earlier been operated by M/s Sanchit Mahajan till 31.03.2026 and that the

Deputy Commissioner, vide communication dated 28.01.2026 addressed to

the Excise Commissioner, had conveyed that the wine shop should not be

permitted to operate from the said location during the financial year 2026-

2027. The successful bidder, Pritam Singh, accordingly sought issuance of a

writ of certiorari for quashing the communication/order of the Excise

Department, contending that the same was arbitrary, perverse and illegal. His

principal contention was that since the liquor vend had remained functional at

13 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

the same premises during the preceding financial years 2024-2025 and 2025-

2026, no fresh NOC was required for operating the vend during the financial

year 2026-2027. It was further pleaded that this Court had earlier observed

that where a liquor vend had already been operationalised at the same location

and continued to be run therefrom, no interference with its allotment for the

subsequent year was warranted. It was also contended that other wine shops in

the locality were functioning regularly and that, even in the connected

petitions, the Excise Department had taken a stand that the area in question

was predominantly commercial. Thus, according to the petitioner, the

direction issued by the Excise Department requiring him to relocate the vend

was contrary to law and inconsistent with the stand otherwise taken by the

Department.

14. According to the petitioners, other liquor vends, namely, M/s Ansh Gupta

Wine Shop, M/s Vishesh Gupta Wine Shop and M/s Vaneet Singh Wine

Shop, are functioning within a distance of approximately 200–250 metres

from the premises in question. Besides these, M/s Royal Group Trading Corp.

Bar and Restaurant is also stated to be operating in the same vicinity without

any objection from the inhabitants of the locality. It was, therefore, contended

that the respondents, without taking into consideration the material fact that

liquor vends had remained operational at the same location during the

preceding financial years, initiated proceedings for relocation of the vend at

the behest of persons having vested interests.

15. During the pendency of the aforesaid petitions, yet another OWP no.757/2026

came to be filed by certain residents, laying challenge to the functioning of

licensees under JKEL-2 and JKEL-4 from premises situated at 90-A, Gandhi

14 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

Nagar, Jammu. The petitioners therein pleaded that both the liquor vends were

situated in a residential area and that, under the Jammu Master Plan, the land

use of the plot upon which the said premises stood had been earmarked as

residential. It was further alleged that no NOC had been issued by the

competent District Magistrate either during the previous financial year or

during the current financial year and, therefore, the licences were being

operated illegally and contrary to the applicable Rules and Excise Policy. In

the said petition, the private respondents filed objections contesting the claims

of the petitioners and, inter alia, alleged that the entire litigation had been

orchestrated at the behest of Jai Dev Kalra and another.

16. Thereafter, yet another petition, being WP(C) 1951/2026 came to be filed by

petitioner-Pritam Singh, questioning the action proposed against him on

account of his inability to make the liquor vend operational within the

stipulated period. In terms of the Excise Policy governing the bidding process,

failure of a successful bidder to make the vend operational entails

consequences, including forfeiture of the earnest money deposit and allotment

of the vend to the H-2 bidder or its re-auction, as the case may be.

Accordingly, the petitioner was called upon to show cause as to why his bid

should not be cancelled and the vend put to re-auction or allotted in

accordance with the Excise Policy, and further as to why his earnest money

deposit should not be forfeited.

17. This Court, vide order dated 03.07.2026, directed the parties to maintain

status quo with regard to the effect and operation of the impugned order dated

23.05.2026. In the said petition, Varun Gupta was also impleaded as a party

respondent. Thus, all the six petitions arise out of a common controversy

15 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

concerning the operation of the liquor vend from the premises belonging to

petitioner-Jai Dev Kaalra. While certain residents of the locality have

questioned the operation of the said vend, some of the residents have,

subsequently, also laid challenge to the functioning of other liquor vends

operating in the area.

18 . Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the successful bidder, argued that the liquor

vend had already remained operational from the premises in question during

the financial years 2024-2025 and 2025-2026. He submitted that, even in the

reply filed by the Excise Department, there is no assertion that the area in

question is exclusively residential. On the contrary, several commercial

establishments, including restaurants and other business establishments, are

functioning in the immediate vicinity of the liquor vend. Thus, according to

learned Senior Counsel, the very premise on which the respondents

proceeded, namely, that the liquor vend was situated in a residential area, has

no factual or legal foundation. It was further urged that the residents opposing

the operation of the liquor vend for the financial year 2026-2027 are

disgruntled persons who have initiated the proceedings at the behest of other

competitors engaged in the same trade. According to him, in the event the

liquor vend in question is not permitted to operate during the financial year

2026-2027, its business would naturally stand diverted to the competing

liquor vends operating in the vicinity, thereby benefiting such competitors at

the cost of the State exchequer

19. It was further contended that the entire exercise undertaken by the District

Administration had commenced in March 2025, yet the liquor vend was never

closed and continued to remain functional throughout the financial year 2025-

16 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

2026 without the Excise Department taking any action or directing its

relocation. It was only after the vend was re-auctioned for the financial year

2026-2027 that the issue of relocation surfaced. According to learned Senior

Counsel, such action smacks of arbitrariness, particularly when the H-1 bidder

has been prevented from operating the vend despite having successfully

participated in the auction process. It was further submitted that no legal or

fundamental right of the residents had been infringed. Even otherwise, if the

operation of the liquor vend in question was objectionable on account of its

location, there was no justification for the residents to selectively acquiesce in

the operation of similarly situated liquor establishments functioning merely a

few metres away from their residences.

20. Learned Senior Counsel also assailed the communication dated 28.01.2026

addressed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, to the Excise

Commissioner, J&K, as suffering from non-application of mind. According to

him, the communication is inherently contradictory inasmuch as, on the one

hand, it permits the liquor vend to continue operating for the financial year

2025-2026, while, on the other hand, it prohibits its operation from the same

premises during the succeeding financial year.

21. Ld. Sr. AAG appearing for the Excise Department, on the other hand,

submitted that in terms of the applicable Excise Policy, once a liquor vend

had already been made operational and had remained functional during the

preceding financial year, there was no requirement of obtaining a fresh NOC

from the Deputy Commissioner. It was, however, submitted that the residents

of the locality had strongly objected to the continuation of the vend from the

said premises for the financial year 2026-2027. It was in the aforesaid

17 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

backdrop that the successful bidder, Pritam Singh, was advised to relocate the

liquor vend to alternative premises. Since he failed to do so, the Excise

Department was constrained to issue a show-cause notice calling upon him to

explain why his bid should not be cancelled.

22. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the residents, however, contended that

Clause 2.3.14 of the Excise Policy recognises the role of the local inhabitants

and takes into consideration orders passed by the Courts. According to him,

objections raised by the local residents are required to be duly considered and,

where such objections are found sustainable, the liquor vend is required to be

shifted to alternative premises within a period of 30 days, failing which the

location may be put to re-auction in accordance with the Policy. It was further

argued that the local inhabitants are stakeholders whose objections to the

opening and operation of a liquor vend cannot be disregarded. The liquor

vend in question, according to learned Senior Counsel, was being operated

from residential premises in contravention of the Excise Policy. Merely

because the owner of the premises had got the building compounded by the

competent building authority would not, by itself, convert the residential

premises into commercial premises.

23. It was further contended that the liquor vend was being operated from

residential premises without requisite permission from the District Magistrate

and, therefore, the Excise Department had rightly directed the successful

bidder to identify an alternative location. According to the residents,

objections had been raised since the year 2024, as the Housing Colony was

designated exclusively for residential purposes. The operation of the liquor

vend was alleged to be causing nuisance in the locality, particularly during the

18 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

evening hours, making it difficult for women to move freely on account of the

presence of intoxicated persons and the alleged increase in undesirable and

criminal activities.

24. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the residents also placed reliance upon

the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Balbir Singh and others v. State

of J&K and others, [OWP No.486/2017] contending that Rule 30 of the

Excise Rules makes it obligatory to take into consideration the

views/objections of persons residing in the locality where the licence is

proposed to be granted. It was argued that merely because a licence had once

been granted for a particular location would not mean that, for all times to

come, the residents of the locality or other establishments referred to under

Rule 30(5) would stand debarred from raising objections. It was further

submitted that unless the Deputy Commissioner issued the requisite clearance,

no such vend could legally be opened. According to learned Senior Counsel,

since the vend had been functioning during the financial years 2024-2025 and

2025-2026 without permission of the District Magistrate, even the temporary

licence issued by the Excise Department could not have been legally

sustained.

25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

26. The liquor vend in question was allotted to petitioner-Pritam Singh in WP(C)

No.637/2026, he having emerged as the successful bidder for the notified

location through e-auction for the financial year 2026-2027. Ordinarily,

therefore, the petitioner, being the successful H-1 bidder, was entitled to the

consequential grant of licence to operate the liquor vend for the financial year

commencing from 01.04.2026 and ending on 31.03.2027. The petitioner,

19 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

however, was not permitted to operate the vend from the premises in question

on account of the communication dated 28.01.2026 addressed by the Deputy

Commissioner to the Excise Commissioner, whereby it was conveyed that the

wine shop at its existing location should not be permitted to operate after

expiry of the then current auction period, in view of the complaints received

from the residents and the alleged illegality in operating a commercial wine

shop in a residential area.

27. The contention that the wine shop is situated in an exclusively residential area

does not appear to be borne out from the status report filed by the Excise

Department pursuant to the directions of this Court. The status report records

that the wine shop had already remained operational from the premises during

the financial years 2024-2025 and 2025-2026. It further reveals that

commercial establishments, including Nathu Sweet Shop, presently stated to

be Ganpati Food Junction, and KFC, are operating in or around the same

premises/locality. The record further indicates that other liquor vends,

namely, M/s Ansh Gupta Wine Shop, M/s Vishesh Gupta Wine Shop and M/s

Vaneet Singh Wine Shop, are functioning within a distance of approximately

200–250 metres from the premises in dispute and within the same general

vicinity. Besides, M/s Royal Group Trading Corp. Bar and Restaurant is also

stated to be operational in the same vicinity without any objection from the

inhabitants of the locality.

28. In terms of the applicable Excise Policy, the H-1 bidder is required to obtain

an NOC from the Deputy Commissioner where a new vend is sought to be

made operational for the first time from newly identified premises. However,

where the vend has already remained functional from the same premises

20 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

during the preceding financial year, the Policy dispenses with the requirement

of obtaining a fresh clearance. Viewed in this backdrop, the challenge raised

by the residents to the operation of the vend and their opposition to the

petition filed by the successful bidder, Pritam Singh, assumes significance in

light of the plea of selective objection raised by the petitioners in the

connected writ petitions.

29. It has been specifically pleaded that petitioner No.2 in WP(C) No. 1106/2025,

who is stated to be residing at 63-A/B, Gandhi Nagar, has raised a grievance

against the disputed vend situated approximately 200 metres from his

residence, while no objection has been raised by him against M/s Ansh Gupta

Wine Shop, which is stated to be situated at a distance of approximately 15

metres from his residence. Similarly, petitioner-Varun Gupta is stated to be

residing at 31-A/B, Gandhi Nagar, and claims that his residence is situated

adjacent to the disputed liquor vend. The pleadings further indicate that the

shop from which the liquor vend had already been operating and from which

it was proposed to operate during the financial year 2026-2027 opens towards

the main road leading to Gole Market, Gandhi Nagar.

30. During the course of hearing, it was also pointed out that the character of the

locality has substantially become commercial. This assertion finds support

from the status report filed by the Excise Commissioner and also from the

stand taken by respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the connected petition, wherein

they claim to be operating their establishments in accordance with Rule 30

and Section 47 of the Excise Act. They have also alleged that the challenge

laid to their licences is actuated by business rivalry. Significantly, the licences

granted to such establishments are stated to have been issued under the same

21 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

statutory and policy framework under which the licence was proposed to be

granted to the successful bidder in the present case.

31. Clause 2.3.8 of the Policy requires the bidder to make his own arrangement

for the shop/premises in conformity with the J&K Excise Act and further

requires the necessary clearance from the District Magistrate in respect of the

premises. The proviso thereto, however, specifically dispenses with the

requirement of such clearance where the premises had remained functional as

a liquor vend during the previous financial year.

32. Pritam Singh participated in the auction process on the premise that the liquor

vend at the notified location had remained functional during the preceding

two financial years and that the same location had again been put to auction

for the financial year 2026-2027. He emerged as the H-1 bidder for the said

location. There is no dispute that the location had been identified and put to

auction by the Excise Department under the applicable Excise Policy. The

question that, therefore, arises is whether the Deputy Commissioner acted

fairly and reasonably while communicating to the Excise Department that, on

account of objections raised by the residents, the liquor vend should not be

permitted to continue from the said premises.

33. The record indicates that the initial complaint was made in March 2025 by

one Dinesh Verma. Significantly, the said complainant has neither instituted

any proceedings before this Court nor sought to support the challenge in any

of the connected petitions, notwithstanding the pendency of several petitions

concerning the same liquor vend. The challenge laid to the vend by the

petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 735/2025 and 1106/2025 does not appear to be

wholly above board, particularly in view of the selective nature of the

22 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

objections noticed hereinabove. The communication dated 28.01.2026 issued

by the Deputy Commissioner also presents an apparent inconsistency. On the

one hand, it permits the liquor vend to continue operating till the end of the

financial year 2025-2026, while, on the other hand, it directs that the same

premises should not be permitted to be used for the subsequent financial year.

34. The principal objection raised by the residents is that the liquor vend is

situated in a residential area. If that yardstick is to be applied to the liquor

vend in question, the same standard would necessarily have to be applied to

similarly situated liquor establishments in the locality. No comparable

objection, however, appears to have been raised against the other liquor vends

operating in the vicinity. The assertion that the locality continues to retain an

exclusively residential character is also not borne out from the status report of

the Excise Commissioner, which indicates the existence of several

commercial establishments in the area, including other liquor vends situated

within a short distance of the premises in question.

35. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the residents sought to distinguish the

other establishments by contending that those shops are situated in the Gole

Market area, whereas the disputed vend is situated in a residential pocket. The

argument, though attractive at first blush, does not find sufficient support

from the material placed on record. As noticed above, petitioner No.2 in

WP(C) No. 1106/2025 is stated to reside approximately 200 metres from the

disputed vend, whereas another wine shop, to which he has raised no

objection, is stated to be situated considerably closer to his residence. The

further contention that the operation of the liquor vend causes nuisance and

that the Deputy Commissioner is, therefore, competent under Section 47 of

23 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

the Excise Act to take appropriate action cannot be accepted in the abstract. It

is undoubtedly within the domain of the competent licensing and statutory

authorities to assess whether a licence ought to be granted, continued,

suspended or otherwise regulated in accordance with law. At the same time,

objections raised by residents must be considered objectively, uniformly and

on the basis of relevant material. The residents cannot insist upon selective

application of the statutory and policy framework to one establishment while

remaining indifferent to other similarly situated establishments operating in

the immediate vicinity.

36. The communication issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, which

has become the genesis of the present litigation, appears to proceed

substantially on the premise that the locality is residential in character. The

material brought on record, however, indicates that several commercial

establishments are operating in the locality. The decision-making process,

therefore, ought to have taken into account the actual character and use of the

locality and ought to have applied a uniform standard to similarly situated

establishments.

37. The contention of the successful bidder that the shop opens towards the main

road and not towards an internal residential lane is also a relevant

circumstance. The apprehension that operation of the liquor vend would

necessarily result in persons consuming liquor and creating nuisance on the

road cannot, in the absence of supporting material, constitute the sole basis for

denying the successful bidder the benefit of the auction. The existence of a

bar and other liquor establishments in the same vicinity, against which no

comparable objection has been shown to have been raised, further lends

24 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

support to the plea that the objections against the disputed vend have been

selective in nature.

38. One of the stated objectives of the Excise Policy, as reflected in Clause 1.7, is

to tap the full potential of the existing liquor industry, promote ancillary

industries, create avenues of employment and achieve digitisation of liquor

manufacturing, distribution and sale from production to retail consumption.

The Policy also seeks to provide consumers with a choice of legally

permissible brands and places of consumption while ensuring a level playing

field for all stakeholders. The Policy for the financial year 2025-2026 also

seeks, inter alia, to rationalise the production and sale of J&K Special Whisky

and J&K Country Liquor, curb illicit distillation and augment revenue in the

Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is in furtherance of these

objectives that retail liquor vends are put to auction on a yearly basis.

39. It is true that Rule 30 of the Liquor Licence and Sale Rules, 1984, was

considered by this Court in Balbir Singh and others v. State of J&K and

others (supra), wherein it was held that the views of the authorities and

establishments contemplated under the Rule, as also the objections emanating

from the neighbourhood, are relevant considerations requiring due enquiry.

Merely because a liquor vend has been permitted to operate at a particular

place in a given year would not mean that, for all times to come, the residents

of the locality or the establishments contemplated under Rule 30(5) stand

precluded from raising legitimate objections. Equally, it is settled that the

right to trade in liquor is not a fundamental right, but a privilege regulated by

the State through the licensing regime. However, in the present case, the

liquor vend had remained operational from the premises in question for two

25 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

consecutive financial years, with the revenue and Excise authorities being

fully aware of its operation. Moreover, under the applicable Policy, the

successful bidder for the financial year 2026-2027 was not required to obtain

a fresh NOC where the vend had remained operational from the same

premises during the preceding financial year.

40. In such circumstances, Pritam Singh, having participated in the auction

process for a location which had itself been notified by the Excise Department

and having emerged as the H-1 bidder, could legitimately proceed on the basis

that the vend could be operated from the premises from which it had been

functioning during the preceding years, subject, of course, to compliance with

the applicable statutory and policy requirements.

41. The bona fides of the objections raised by the residents have to be appreciated

in the light of the selective approach noticed hereinabove. The communication

dated 28.01.2026 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, to the Excise

Department does not appear to have been preceded by a comprehensive

exercise examining the status of similarly situated liquor establishments

operating in the locality. The record indicates that the matter had remained

under consideration before the Deputy Commissioner since March 2025 on

the basis of objections initially raised by one resident. There is nothing on

record, as presented before this Court, to demonstrate that a representative

objection from the residents of the locality as a whole had formed the basis of

a comprehensive enquiry concerning all similarly situated establishments.

42. Objections appear to have been raised specifically against the vend in

question without any corresponding challenge to other similarly situated

liquor establishments. A holistic exercise by the District Administration,

26 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

taking into consideration the number and location of liquor vend operating in

Ward No. 20, particularly in the Gandhi Nagar area, and applying a uniform

standard to all similarly situated establishments, would have lent greater

objectivity and fairness to the decision-making process.

43. Petitioner-Pritam Singh, having emerged as the successful bidder in an

auction conducted by the Excise Department, was entitled to fair and non-

discriminatory treatment in accordance with the applicable Policy. The action

of the revenue authorities in issuing the impugned communication, which

ultimately prevented the Excise Department from permitting the successful

bidder to operate the vend for the financial year 2026-2027, cannot be

sustained when tested against the Policy and the material placed on record.

Apart from its consequences for the successful bidder, the action also has a

bearing on Government revenue and is capable of conferring an unintended

commercial advantage upon competing establishments operating in the

vicinity.

44. The conduct of the residents in selectively questioning the liquor vend in

issue, while not raising comparable objections against similarly situated

establishments, cannot be appreciated. Though this Court could have

considered imposition of costs if it were established that the process of the

Court had been invoked for an oblique or collateral purpose, taking a lenient

view of the matter, no such costs are being imposed. The petitioners are,

however, expected to exercise due care and responsibility while invoking the

extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The approach adopted by the

Excise Department also reflects an apparent inconsistency. On the one hand,

the Department has supported the position that no fresh NOC was required for

27 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

premises from which the vend had operated during the preceding financial

year; on the other hand, it proceeded to issue a show-cause notice to the

successful bidder proposing cancellation of his bid on account of his failure to

make the vend operational, notwithstanding the fact that his inability to do so

arose from the dispute concerning the very premises auctioned by the

Department.

45. In view of the aforesaid discussion, WP(C) No. 637/2026 is allowed. The

communication dated 28.01.2026 bearing No.DMJ/Misc./2025-26/6124-28

issued by the Add. Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, is hereby quashed.

Consequently, the communication dated 06.03.2026 issued by the Excise

Department on the basis thereof shall also stand quashed. The respondents to

undertake the consequential process in favour of petitioner-Pritam Singh, who

has been declared the successful H-1 bidder, and to permit him to avail the

benefits of the bid to its logical conclusion in accordance with the J&K Excise

Policy, 2026-2027. WP(C) No. 1951/2026 is also allowed and the impugned

communication/order dated 23.05.2026 is hereby quashed. The Excise

Department shall undertake the consequential follow-up action with regard to

the liquor vend in accordance with law and the applicable Excise Policy.

46. WP(C) No. 234/2026 is also allowed to the extent of challenge to the

communication dated 28.01.2026, which stands quashed in terms of the

findings recorded hereinabove. However, insofar as the petition relates to

petitioner No.2, Sanchit Mahajan, is concerned the operation of the liquor

vend for the financial year 2025-2026, the licence period having already

expired, the petition to that extent has been rendered infructuous. Similarly,

28 WP (C) No. 234/2026 c/w WP(C) Nos.735/2025; 1106/2025; 637/2026; 757/2026 & 1951/2026

OWP 757/2026 too does not survive which along with WP(C) Nos. 735/2025

and 1106/2025 lack merits shall stand dismissed.

( Sanjay Parihar )

Judge

Jammu

20.08.2026

Rahul Sharma

Whether the judgment is speaking? : Yes

Whether the Judgment is reportable? : Yes