Back
RITU BAHRI, KULDEEP TIWARI
Jagdish Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory of Chandigarh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Mr. Kuldeep Tiwari, J.
Petitioner-firm knocked the doors of this Court by invoking the inherent writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of the order dated 26.8.2022 (Annexure P- 18), passed by respondent no. 3, vide which the allotment of retail sale foreign liquor (L-2/L-14A) license to the petitioner for Vend Code 85 at Raipur Kalan (within Lal Dora), U.T. Chandigarh, was cancelled and also the order dated 14.11.2022, (Annexure P-24) vide which its statutory appeal was dismissed by respondent No. 2. The petitioner further sought a mandamus for issuance of directions to respondent no. 2 to allow the petitioner to shift the allotted liquor Vend from area falling under Lal Dora to a place outside Lal Dora of village Raipur Kalan, UT. Chandigarh and also sought directions that 15% bid money paid at the time of allotment may not be forfeited by the Respondent-State.
2. At the time of issuance of notice of motion, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, on instructions imparted to him by the petitioner, made a statement that he does not want to press the issue of cancellation of allotment of the retail sale and liquor li
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
Unilateral extension of a liquor license after its expiry is unlawful and violates statutory provisions and contractual obligations.
The court upheld the validity of the Liquor Policy prohibiting public servants from holding liquor licences, affirming the State's authority to impose such conditions in public interest.
The State Government cannot relax excise policy restrictions on shifting liquor shops outside designated areas, as it contravenes established law requiring public notification.
The court established that licensed manufacturers must be compensated for all supplied inventory under contractual obligations, regardless of prohibition policies affecting sale.
The impugned order, which directed L7Z licensees not to give concession, rebate, or discount on the Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of liquor, was justified as it aimed to regulate the sale, consumption, ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
