##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:2126 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 720 of 2026

25 March, 2026

Manoj Pant --Petitioner

Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, learned counsel, has instructions to appear on behalf of Respondent No. 5, the new allottee of the shop, who seeks and is granted permission to file his vakalatnama during the

course of the day in the Registry.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:-

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned notification dated 16.03.2026 (annexure no.7) issued by respondent no.3-qua the Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop Ratighat, District Nainital serial no.-5 for District Nainital which has been made available to

be allotted by the process of lottery.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the proceedings of lottery held on 20.03.2026 (annexure no.11) passed to respondent no.5, whereby the Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop Ratighat, District Nainital

has been allotted to the respondent no.5.”

2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted an Indian Made Foreign Liquor shop in Khairna, District Nainital, in the year 2025 under the Excise Policy dated 05.03.2025. In the said policy, it was decided by the State Government that the allottee can get the renewal of his shop allotted

1

2026:UHC:2126 for the financial year 2025–2026 and for the subsequent years 2026–27 and 2027–28, subject to certain

conditions.

3. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Excise Policy, it has also been decided that, in order to achieve the financial target, the State Government can allot more Indian Made Foreign Liquor shops, and according to the aforesaid policy, seven more shops were allotted and opened in the previous financial year 2025–26. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 20.03.2026 whereby the shop has been created and consequently allotted to the

private respondent in Ratighat, District Nainital.

4. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 5 produced before this Court an order dated 23.03.2026, whereby the shop has now been allotted in favour of Respondent No. 5 after rejecting the objection of the petitioner. The said order dated 23.03.2026 is taken on record. He further submitted that against the order of allotment of a shop to respondent no.5, an appeal would lie before the Excise Commissioner under Section 11(1) of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 (for short, “the Act,

1910”).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has a strong objection, stating that against the order of allotment, no

appeal would lie.

6. I have perused the provisions of Section 11(1)

of the Act, 1910, which is quoted hereinbelow:-

11. Appeals and revisions.-(1) The Collector and every other Excise Officer (not being the Excise Commissioner) shall, in respect of all proceedings under this Act, be subject to the control of the Excise Commissioner and all orders passed by Collector or such other officer under this Act, shall be appealable to Excise Commissioner in the manner prescribed by rules made by the State

2

2026:UHC:2126 Government in this behalf:

Provided that no appeal shall be entertained under sub-

section(1) unless it is preferred by the aggrieved person within thirty days from the date of communication of such order, and unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of having paid a sum of not less than 25 percent, of the disputed amount of tax, fee, penalty

or other dues, if any, as the case may be:

Provided further that the appellate authority may, for specia