##PAGE1##

I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAI NI TAL

HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

21^st May, 2026

WRI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) No. 404F 2026

Megha Malhotra …….Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel.

Counsel for the respondents : Sri Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, learned

Additional Advocate General for the

State of Uttarakhand / respondent

Nos. 1 to 4.

Sri Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel

for respondent No. 5.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by order dated 17.02.2026

passed by Excise Commissioner allotting a retail liquor shop at

Dalanwala, Parade Ground, Dehradun in favour of respondent No. 5, has

filed the present writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was allottee of the

same shop during the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26. The

petitioner applied for renewal of the license of the said shop by

submitting an application by physical mode in the office of District Excise

Officer on 16.02.2026. However, the office of the District Excise Officer

did not acknowledge receipt of the said application. 16.02.2026 was

also last date fixed for submitting the renewal application. The

petitioner waited till the next day, but when receipt was still not issued,

she sent an e-mail at 05:20 PM on 17.02.2026 to the District Magistrate

/ Licensing Officer stating that she had submitted her application for

renewal in the office of the District Excise Officer, Dehradun on

16.02.2026, but she has not been issued acknowledgement of receipt of

1

the said application. She, accordingly, made prayer to him to issue

necessary directions to the concerned officer to renew her license.

3. On the very next date, i.e. 17.02.2026, the Excise

Commissioner, by the impugned order, allotted the shop in question to

private respondent No. 5. The order of allotment records that no

renewal application had been received in respect of the said shop and,

therefore, after due deliberation, the shop in question was being allotted

to respondent No. 5, having regard to the interest of the revenue. The

order of allotment has purportedly been passed under Clause 42 of the

Excise Policy.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 has been orchestrated by the

District Excise Officer in collusion with the Excise Commissioner. It is

submitted that as per Clause 2 of the Excise Policy issued on

05.03.2025, the shops, which remain unallotted, have to be allotted

through a two-stage lottery system. If, even after following the said

procedure, the shops could not be settled, the District Magistrate is

empowered to receive application directly and make allotment on basis

of first-come-first-serve. In the instant case, no such procedure was

followed. Further, as 16.02.2026 was the last date for obtaining renewal

applications, therefore, it is not known how the District Excise Officer

and Excise Commissioner have proceeded to allot the shop in question in

favour of private respondent No. 5 on the very next date. The entire

exercise has been conducted surreptitiously to extend undue favour to

private respondent No. 5, who is stated to be PRO of the local MLA, who

also is a Minister.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State submits

that the allotment was made in favour of private respondent No. 5 as no

2

application for renewal was received from the petitioner. However, he

does not dispute that last date for submitting renewal applications was

16.02.2026 and the impugned allotment has been made on the very

next date without following the procedure of lottery provided under

Clause 2 of the Excise Policy.

6. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5,

contended that the allegation in the writ petition that respondent No. 5 is

PRO of the local Minister is incorrect.

7. Be that as it may, since it is not disputed that lottery system,

as prescribed vide Clause 2 of the Excise Policy, has