HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1454 of 2025 Pawan Kumar Jaiswal ….....Petitioner Versus District Magistrate/District Collector and others ….Respondents Present:-

Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suyash Pant, Standing Counsel for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the communication dated 20.03.2025, by the respondent no.3, In-Charge Officer (Collection), Dehradun. By it, the letter dated 13.02.2025 of the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain has been forwarded to the Tehsildar, Dehradun for recovery. The challenge has also been made to the recovery citations issued by the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly stated, are as follows:-

(i) The petitioner was allotted a liquor shop in District Ujjain in the year 2015-2016. Subsequently, his license was cancelled on 05.01.2016.

(ii) The proceedings taken by the Excise Department against the petitioner was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 568 of 2016, in the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore (“the first petition), which was decided on 13.05.2016. The Court had then observed that “when the contract is already over, it is not proper when we should exercise the restricted jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”

(iii) Again demand notice on 16.08.2016 and a recovery citation dated 07.11.2016 was issued against the petitioner, which was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 8435 of 2016, before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench Indore, which was decided on 14.02.2017 (“the second petition”). The Court had quashed the demand notice dated 16.08.2016 as well as recovery citation dated 07.11.2016. The respondents were then given liberty to take fresh action, in accordance with law.

(iv) A recovery citation was issued against the petitioner by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun. Then objections were raised by the petitioner that it is not permissible, in view of the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Court in second petition. Accordingly, on 20.05.2019, the recovery citation was returned by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun.

(v) Now again, it is the case of the petitioner that on

13.02.2025, nullifying the earlier orders of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the first petition and the second petition, fresh letter was written by the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain to the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun for recovery which was endorsed by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun to the respondent no.2, Tehsildar, Dehradun, who thereafter, issued recovery citations, which are impugned.

4. At the very outset, the Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner, as to how, this Court can entertain this petition, keeping in view the aspect of territorial jurisdiction?

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would raise the following points:-

(i) Earlier on two occasions, when the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain had initiated recovery proceedings against the petitioner, they were successfully challenged by the petitioner in the first petition and the second petition.

(ii) Thereafter, once again, in the year 2019, the respondent no.4, Collector, District Ujjain has initiated the process of recovery which was returned by the respondent no.1, District Magistrate, Dehradun, keeping in view the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, in the second petition.

(iii) The initial action of the respondent no.4, the Collector, District Ujjain was not found inconformity with law by the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench in the first petition and the second petition.

(iv) Knowing this fact, third time a comm