SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 581043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MANOJ SINGH BISHT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMS 2539 / 2025



Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS No. 2539 of 2025

With

WPMS No. 2540 of 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. Rahul Adhikari, learned counsel

for the petitioners.

2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2539 of 2025 alone are being

considered.

4. Petitioner is a licencee for retail sale of Country Made Liquor. His licence to sell Country Made Liquor was suspended vide order dated 19.08.2025 passed by District Excise Officer. Challenging the suspension order, petitioner has filed this

writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that District Excise Officer is not competent to pass the order of suspension, as District Magistrate alone is competent for the purpose. He further submitted that a licence can be suspended only on the ground indicated in Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 and none of the ground mentioned in the inspection report is

referable to Section 34 of the Act.

6. In the pre-lunch session, State

Counsel was asked to get instructions in the matter. The matter was again taken up in post-lunch session and State Counsel has produced in Court order dated 27.08.2025 issued by District Excise Officer, Nainital.

7. Perusal of the said order reveals that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner has been revoked.

8. In view of the development, which has taken place during pendency of the writ petition, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, does not survive.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed, as infructuous.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

01.09.2025 Aswal N SI I N T G I R H A A J SWAL D2p3De.1oiN a 5r g 7sti:4 et tca: a 62N =llCF0Iu yN Bom s,de 5 iobag ., =cn c9 Hr2e n6IdG7431 N b5HE y IT5 CeB N : O5 ,R I74 TsU A8tC=J R B US1A FIeOT-0 J N9FS G3AB I ' UN HR7fTG 689 HKS98H W A3RCA4S BNfWK6L0DHF 71,4LN CD20, o5Eua3=D8H25I6GfF9H58 C0C2OaUD3RA0TC8 OFb4F08UdT13A06CR95FK1EH25Ae8aNA3D508,f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top