IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
Vijay Pratap Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Excise Civil Sectt. Lko. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Pankaj Bhatia, J.
1. Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi, Shri Shobhit Mohan Shukla, Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, Shri Rohit Jaiswal, Shri Abhishek Singh and Shri Avinash Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the State assisted by Shri Anil Pratap singh, learned Addl. Advocate General, Shri Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned CSC, Shri Pankaj Khare, learned A.C.S.C., Shri Tushar Verma, learned A.C.S.C., Shri Badrish Tripathi, learned A.C.S.C., Shri Abhishek Kumar Pandey, A.C.S.C. and Shri Dheerendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-State.
2. Present writ petitions have been filed challenging the Government Order dated 06.02.2025 specifically 5.11 issued by respondent no.1. There is also a challenge to the consequential order dated 06.02.2025 issued by respondent no.2 and the notices dated 13.02.2025 issued by respondent no.3 which provides for settlement of all country liquor shops through e-lottery process including the shop of the petitioners as contained in Annexures – 1 to 3. A further mandamus has been sought commanding respondent no.3 to exclude the shop of the petitioners for the settlement throug
Government of India vs. Vedanta Limited & Ors.
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. and Others vs. State of Karnataka and Others
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. vs. Delhi Administration and Others
State of Kerala and Others vs. B. Surendra Das and others
Kuldeep Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
Har Shankar v. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr.
Cooverjee B. Bharucha v. Excise Commr.
Nagendra Nath Bora v. Commr. of Hills Division
Amar Chandra Chakrabotry v. Collector of Excise
State of Bombay v. R.M.D. Chamarbaugwala
Union of India vs. Indo-Afghan Agencies Ltd.
S.B. International Ltd. vs. Assistant Director General of Foreign Trade & Ors.
Union of India vs. Indian Charge Crome and Anr.
Howrah Municipal Corp. and Others vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. and Others
Kuldeep Singh vs. Govt. NCT of Delhi
Commissioner of Municipal Corporation, Shimla vs. Prem Lata Sood and Others
The State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Lok Shikshan Sanstha and others
The State of Maharashtra and Another vs. Lok Shikshan Sanstha and others
Col A. S. Sangwan vs. Union of India and Others
Shri Sitaram Sugar Company Ltd. vs. Union of India and Others
Union of India vs. S. L. Dutta and Another
Ugar Sugar Works Ltd vs. Delhi Administration and others
Sidheshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. Union of India and others
Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur Ltd. Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others
Bajaj Hindustan Limited vs. Sir Shadi Lal Enterprises Limited and another
Ehsan Khalid Vs. Union of India through Secretary and others
Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Bombay
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others
Hindustan Times and others Vs. State of U.P. and another
Bishambhar Dayal Chandra Mohan & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
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.
Point of law : Owner of cinema house cannot challenge the setting up of a new cinema house because it does not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest, the business competitio....
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.