Office Notes,

reports, orders or proceedings

SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

No.

and Registrar’s

order with Signatures

WPMS/ 546/ 2025

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

1. Mr. V.K. Kaparuwan, learned counsel

for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of

Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner has sought enforcement of orders dated 24.10.2024 and 08.11.2024 passed by Excise Commissioner. According to petitioner, District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal has erred in not complying with the direction issued by Excise Commissioner in the aforesaid two orders and in not adding the petitioner, as co-licensee, in respect of retail liquor shop of Hindolakhal, Tehri

Garhwal.

4. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that District Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal has filed revision petition under Section 11(2) of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 against Excise Commissioner’s order passed on 28.03.2025, therefore, till the time revision petition is decided, the order passed by Excise Commissioner cannot be implemented. He further submits that Excise Commissioner order is unsustainable, as initially Excise Commissioner had directed the District Magistrate to remove name of petitioner from the black list and when District Magistrate enquired the Excise Commissioner about the provision, under which petitioner can be removed from black list, then the Excise Commissioner

himself passed the order for removing petitioner from black list. He submits that huge amount of Excise dues is pending against the petitioner and as per the Uttarakhand Excise Act and policy framed thereunder, without paying Excise dues, petitioner could not have been removed from the black list.

5. Learned State Counsel further submits that the revision petition filed by District Magistrate was closed by State Government on the ground of pendency of this writ petition. He submits that Revisional Authority be directed to decide revision petition on merits so that all the Statutory remedies are exhausted by the parties before approaching this Court.

6. This Court finds some substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since a Statutory remedy is available to every person aggrieved by an order passed under the Uttarakhand Excise Act, therefore, it would be in the fitness of thing that the revision filed by District Magistrate is decided on merits.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by setting aside the order dated 26.09.2025 passed by Principal Secretary (Excise) on the appeal filed by District Magistrate and the Revisional Authority is directed to decide the revision on merits, as per law, within two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J)

06.01.2026 Aswal NSIINTGI RHA AJ SWALDU28s4De.dTiN a5r g1ti:4ae3Atcl: a C2N =Rl90Iu yN F=mK E s,eiobag .8 =cn ANHr e =36DIdG749 ,fb5 E y,C eB1pN : O 7oI 4 T 2 Us86taR Bl1A FCeO - Jo9FSd3, I ' UN c7=fn TG2H69N A3RCIT4S BfW K0R1HF7,A sJ LtN =SCI DU2NT, G o5EH uAa3 =RD8H2S5KI6W GfHF9L C0CN 2ODaU,3 RA0TC8 OFb4F