Reserved I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA WRI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) NO.127 OF 2025 Pawan Kumar …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

With WRI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) NO.131 OF 2025 Siddhant Bailwal …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

WRI T PETI TI ON ( M/ B) NO. 132 OF 2025 Tejendra Singh …..Petitioner.

Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents. Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Tej Pratap Singh, learned counsel.

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. S.N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General with Mr. J.S.

Bisht, learned Standing Counsel.

Judgment Reserved on:17.06.2025 Judgment Delivered on:03.07.2025 The Court made the following:

COMMON JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. G. Narendar)

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General for the State- respondents.

2. The instant writ petitions are preferred praying to declare a part of Rule 17b of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy Manual- Year 2025-26, 2026-27 and 2027-28 (Three Year Excise Policy), which prohibits sale of liquor by FL-5DS/M licensees in “adjoining areas of Natraj Chowk, AIIMS, IDPL and Shyampur”. The rule is challenged on the ground of ambiguity and vesting of unguided power rendering it arbitrary and discriminatory.

3. Rule 17b of the Policy reads as under:-

“17(b) The previously approved FL-5 DS/M in Haridwar city of Haridwar district, Rishikesh city of Dehradun district such as Natraj Chowk and adjoining areas, AIIMS adjoining area, IDPL area, Shyampur area will not be renewed for the financial year 2025-26”.

4. The contention is that, the unguided discretion has resulted in ambiguity and has resulted in excessive delegation resulting in arbitrariness in the decision making.

5. The undisputed fact is that all the petitioners were granted FL-5 (DS) licenses for the year 2024-25; that as per the earlier policy, the Government, in exercise of its powers vested under Section 37-A, in particular, sub-section (3) of Section 37-A in Chapter VI-A of the United Provinces Excise Act, 1910(for short “the Act, 1910”), has prohibited sale of liquor within the Rishikesh Nagar Palika, i.e. within a definitive perimeter; that in consonance with the then existing policy, the petitioners were called upon to deposit the license fees for renewal, etc;. That it is not in dispute that vending of foreign liquor in shopping malls, departmental stores, pursuant to the Rules formulated in 2013, namely, the Uttarakhand Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Foreign Liquor Premium Retail Vends, Shopping Malls/ Departmental Stores) Rules, 2013, which came to be gazetted on 26.12.2013, came to be permitted.

6. That the State Government enacted the impugned Policy/Rules, in exercise of the powers conferred on it under Section 40 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (United Provinces Act No.04/1910) (as adapted and modified in Uttarakhand) read with Section 21 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, 1904. That the State Government, in a departure from the usual practice, has framed a triennial policy called Uttarakhand Policy Manual/ Year 2025-26, 2026-27, and 2027-28 (three years excise policy), which came to be issued on 05^th March, 2025. That perusal of Rule 1 would demonstrate that it pertains to the expected revenue from the various thirteen districts for each of the years and the district also includes Haridwar, where ban or prohibition of sale of liquor has been implemented in certain parts and the projected revenue is the second highest amongst thirteen districts. That, while so framing the Rules, Rule 17 came to be enacted; that while so framing the Rules, the State proceeded to add the words “and adjoining areas”, after mentioning the definitive area, namely, Natraj Chowk, AIIMS, IDPL and Shyampur and under the triennial policy it was promulgated that FL-6/ DS/M licenses would not be renewed for the financial year