The SDM exceeded jurisdiction by suspending the liquor vend without immediate threat or public nuisance, as approval was granted by competent authorities.

.Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rak esh Kainthla, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?¹ No For the Petitioner: Mr.N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.S.Gill, Advocate.

For the Respondent: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge g The petitioner has filed the present petition for iquashing of order dated 19.05.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 163 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was the successful bidder of unit No. 40 (Jawalaji) in the sale of retail vends through the auction Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes process for the year 2025-26. He submitted an application to ASTEO, Dehra,District Kangra, H.P., to shift his liquor vend L14 from Tihri Road Amb Pathiar to Tihri Road Amb Pathiar Chowk, stating that the sale of liquor was less at the old lo.cation and he was unable to pay the excise dues. ASTEO, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. submitted a report that the proposed location fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the Excise Policy and recommended changing the location of the liq uor vend. The Collector Excise- cum-Joint Commissionerr, State Taxes and Excise, North Zone Palampur, H.P. granted the permission to shift the retail vend from the current location to the new location at Tihri Road, Amb Pathiar CChowk.

3. Learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., noticed that the liquor vend was being established on the National Highway, Jawalaji to Nadaun Road near Government Degree College, Jawalamukhi, instead of the approved location at Tihri Road, Amb Pathiar Chowk. This discrepancy created confusion and potential law and order problems, as per the representation received from residents. Hence, learned SDM, Jawalmukhi, District Kangra, H.P. ordered the suspension of liquor vend L-14 of the petitioner with immediate effect till the receipt of proper clarification regarding the approved location was received and procedural requirements as per the Excise Policy 2025-26 was fully complied with.

4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., had no jurisdictifon under the Excise Act. There was no threat to public peace or any untoward incident, but only a discrepancy in the relocation. The Excise authorities were to verify the relocation as per the orders, and the learned SDM had no jurisdiction to order the closure of the liquor vend. No public nuisance or safety was involved in the present case. The power to close the liquor vend is vested with the District Magistrate, that too fo r 24 hours at a time. The petitioner was suffering a loss of ₹20,000/- per day. The liquor vend was not near any religious or educational institution. This fact was verified by the excise officials. The petitioner had completed all the requirements under the Excise and Taxation laws. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned SDM, Jawalmukhi, District Kangra, H.P., be set aside.

5. The petition is opposed by filing a reply admitting that the petitioner was the successful bidder and that he had applied for the relocation of the liquor vend, which was approved. It was asserted that the site map of the new location was verified by the concerned Circle Excise Officer and countersigned by DCST&E (Excise), District Kangra, H.P. The liquor vend was shifted after approval and issuance of a valid pass by Circle A.STEO, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. No order was passed by the Excise authorities for the closure of the liquor vend. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitio