Writ courts cannot grant interim relief beyond prayers by restraining un-challenged actions on third-party applications; incompetent subordinate notice quashed without affecting competent authority's proceedings on license matters.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.

1. Heard Shri Kavin Gulati, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Abhay Chattopadhya, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent no. 1 & Shri C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 2 & 3.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 51/2026, whereby the learned Single Judge, while entertaining the aforesaid Writ Petition filed by respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘petitioner’), challenging a notice dated 10.12.2025 issued by the In-charge Excise Officer, has restrained the respondents from taking any further action on basis thereof, and has issued various other directions also. The operative part of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 08.01.2026 is as under :-

“11. Until further orders, the Official-respondents are restrained from taking any further action on the impugned notice dated 10.12.2025, annexure no. 1 as well as on the application of respondent no. 3 dated 10.11.2025. Simultaneously, during this period Official-respondents are directed to take decision on earlier notice dated 27.10.2025, issued by the Excise Commissioner, which is annexed as Annexure 19, and place before this Court the decision as such on the next date.”

3. The order of the learned Single Judge aforesaid dated 08.01.2026 was challenged by the appellant (respondent no. 3 to the Writ Petition) before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 3077/2026. The Supreme Court, by order dated 23.01.2026, declined to interfere with the impugned order, in view of availability of the remedy of intra-court appeal to the appellant herein. The Supreme Court, however, observed that, since the order of this Court, impugned before the Supreme Court, prima facie, affects valuable rights of the appellant, therefore, in case any appeal is preferred by the appellant, the same shall be considered on merits. The order of the Supreme Court dated 23.01.2026 is as follows :-

“1. In view of availability of an intra-court appeal before the High Court of Uttarakhand, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned interim order of the High Court; hence, the special leave petition is dismissed.

2. If an appeal is preferred, the same shall be considered on merits. We make this observation because the impugned interim order does, prima facie, seem to affect a valuable right of the petitioner.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

4. The appellant, thereafter, filed the instant intra- court appeal, and, in view of the directions issued by the Supreme Court, it has to be decided on merits.

5. The appellant-company is engaged in the business of brewing, packaging, distributing, marketing and selling of alcoholic and non-alcoholic beverages in India. By an agreement dated 20.03.2021, between the appellant and the petitioner, the petitioner was appointed as distributor for four brands of beer manufactured by it for the State of Uttarakhand. The said agreement was for a period of 12 months. According to the appellant, the Distributor Agreement was extended from time to time, on basis of addenda(s) executed between the parties. There exists a BWFL-2B license in the name of the petitioner, and which is valid up to 31^st March, 2026. Ther