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) 702043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
PREM SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMS 2182 / 2023



Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

S N L o . .

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS 2182/ 2023

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate,

for the petitioners.

Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy

AG, for the State.

(2) Petitioner was granted licence to run a Indian made foreign liquor shop at Shaharfatak in District Almora. Collector, Almora passed an order on 20.7.2021 asking the petitioner to deposit the amount of loss suffered by the State Government in re-auctioning the licence. Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order, passed by Collector under Section 11(1) of the Excise Act, before the appellate authority i.e. Commissioner, Excise Department. While preferring the appeal, petitioner also filed an application seeking relaxation of condition of pre-deposit of 25 per cent of the disputed amount. Petitioner’s application for exemption was rejected by Excise Commissioner vide order dated 25.7.2023. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this petition challenging

the order dated 25.7.2023.

(3) After arguing for a while, learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that since petitioner has remedy of revision before the State Government, therefore, writ petition may be disposed of by permitting the petitioner to approach the revisional authority. He submits that writ petition was filed in 2023, as, at that time, the same officer was holding charge of Excise Commissioner as well as Secretary, Excise. He submits that the benefit of time

spent in pursuing the remedy before this Court may be given to petitioner as per provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.

(4) Learned State Counsel submits that he has no objection if writ petition is disposed of in terms of the prayer made by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(5) Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of granting liberty to petitioner to file revision before the State Government within ten days from today. Petitioner shall be at liberty to seek benefit of Section 14 of Limitation Act, as regards time spent by him in pursuing the remedy before this Court.

(6) For a period of ten days, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by Collector on 20.7.2021.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

11.9.2025 Pr P K R U A M B A O R DH DU29sFDeC.8TiN a5r gdAti:4ae Atcl: a62N =R 2 l0C Iu0 yN=mK s,37 iob gaF. A= 0,e3 n pNHr8C e =o2D 2 IdGsa0 ,tb D yl2 CCP 7: Oo9B Rd5UAeE Bf=83 TO92D, + D1c6n03FH Ca=0 A K9'P3 T6 U5R0,M EstA7=O R4UBD3 KT9aH Hf 8AAK0NERU2FD1MDcK, 5oH0R8u6 =NH2DIfG,C e aC1OA4UBR56T81 aOf03F52eDFb61

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