IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 10.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 ACL Wine Pvt. Ltd.

….Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents (2) CWP-27109-2025 Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 Iltaza Choujar ….Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents (3) CWP-27077-2025 Reserved on: 11.09.2025 Pronounced on: 19.09.2025 Maneet Choujar ….Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI Present: Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate and Mr. Randeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Additional Standing Counsel Ms. Mahima Dogra, Junior Panel Counsel for the respondents- U.T., Chandigarh.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J.

1. This judgment shall dispose of three petitions involving similar facts and questions of law being CWP-26639-2025, CWP-27077-2025 and CWP-27077-2025. However, for the sake of convenience, facts are being taken from CWP-26639-2025.

2. The petitioner – a wine contractor, has petitioned this Court for issuance of directions to the respondents to release its bank guarantees amounting to Rs.1,36,50,000/-, which according to the petitioner, the respondents are refusing to release without any legal justification. The petitioner also seeks award of interest for the period that its bank guarantees have been unlawfully withheld by the respondents.

THE FACTS

3. In March 2025, the UT Administration announced its Excise Policy for the year 2025-2026 (for short – the Policy) governing the grant of licences to run liquor vends within the territory of UT, Chandigarh.

4. As per clause 21 of the Policy, the successful bidder was required to deposit an amount equal to 15% of the total bid amount within 07 bank working days from the date of allotment; the deposit of 15% had 02 components, one of which was 7% of the total bid amount which was required to be deposited in the form of furnishing of a bank guarantee which was non-adjustable, yet refundable, but subject to clearance of dues and the second component of 8% of the total bid amount was to be deposited by the successful bidder in the government treasury which was adjustable against the total licence fee. Clause 21 further provided that in case the successful bidder failed to comply with the aforesaid conditions, its earnest money was liable to be forfeited and in case any other vend had also been allotted to the said bidder that would be cancelled and the respective deposits, made for that allotment, would be forfeited as also that such allottee would not be allowed to participate, as a stake holder, in any of the future allotments to be made under the Policy.

5. Clause 34 of the Policy was to the effect that in case any situation arose leading to re-allotment of a licence, the reserve price at the time of re-allotment would be fixed by computing it from the original licence fee for the remainder period or the balance licence fee as may be decided by the department of Excise, UT of Chandigarh. In case, at the time of re- allotment, no bid would be received at the given reserve price, then the procedure prescribed for unallotted licences would be followed and that the re-allotment would be done at the risk and cost of the original allottee. In case of any deficiency in revenue at the time of re-allotment the balance /

deficient amount would be recoverable from the original allottee.

6. Clause 37 of the Policy provided the payment schedule alongwith the interest payable for late deposit of any installment.

7. Clause 54 of the Policy permitted transfer of licences. Such transfer was subject to deposit of 1% of the licence fee with the respondent- administration and could be sought for by an allottee/ original licencee who was not a defaulter at the time of transfer of the licence and that such transfer was subject to the final approval by the Collector. Clause 54 of the Policy also permitted subsequen