2026:CGHC:893-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WP(C) No. 6402 of 2025 Saurabh Singh Chauhan S/o Late S. S. Chauhan Aged About 32 Years Address- Village Mudhpar, Tahsil- Khairagadh Dist. K.C.G (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Excise, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur (C.G.)

2 - Commissioner Excise Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.)

3 - District Excise Officer Dist. Mohla-Manpur-Ambagadh Chowki (C.G.).

--- Respondents (Cause title is taken from the CIS)

For Petitioner : Shri N. Naha Roy, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Shashank Thakur, Additional AG Digitally signed by VASANT VASANT KUMAR KUMAR Date:

2026.01.07 18:54:57 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

Order on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

07.01.2026

1.Heard Shri N. Naha Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General for the State/Respondent.

2.The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article

226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s) :

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in nature of Mandamus and quash the order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) as also the sealing of shop consequently vide photo dated 22.11.2025 (Annexure P/2) for the same being absolutely misconceived in law and arbitrary.

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the ‘premises’ associated with the IMFL shop concerned, allotted to him after a due tender process without any hurdle.

10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

3.Subject matter is in brief is that the petitioner has been allotted with a 'premise' associated with the IMFL shop concerned after a due tender process. The petitioner while operating the 'premises' by remaining within the terms of license to operate the same has been issued with order dated 07.11.2025 whereby under reference of the Clause 22.4 of the Instructions dated 28.03.2025 issued by the respondents prescribing guidelines for the allotment of premises and various other matters connected therewith he has been asked to shift the 'premises' at a different location. Such an order is absolutely wrong and arbitrary for the reason of the precondition of asking to shift the 'premises' having not been fulfilled there at all. Order dated 14.11.2025 shifting the IMFL shop, i.e. the indispensable precondition for shifting of the premises having passed after a week of the order shifting the premises the present case turns out to be one of rounding the clock otherwise, which may not have any acceptance in law. The IMFL shop concerned is still in operation even after passing of the order dated 14.11.2025, whereas the premises' has been sealed on 22.11.2025.

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop after a due tender process is absolutely harsh, irrational and without legal authority and as such calls for interference of this Court. He would further submit that the order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop under reference of the Clause 22.4 of the instructions dated 28.03.2025 is per se misconceived and illogical for the foremost condition of application of such clause of shifting of the IMFL shop having not fulfilled and thus needs immediate interference of this Hon'ble Court for protection of his fundamental right to business as enshrined under Articles 14 r/w. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop is per se bad from the fact that even for record's sake the order of shifting of the IMFL shop has been