Excise Commissioner Cannot Relocate Permitted Liquor Sub-Shop Because It Adversely Affects Another Licensee's Revenue: Uttarakhand High Court
The Uttarakhand High Court has held that the Commissioner, Excise cannot relocate a sub-shop of a licensee only on the ground that the revenue of another liquor shop was adversely affected. The Court observed that the power under Rule 28.4(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy to relocate a shop was available to the District Magistrate and not to the Commissioner, Excise.
Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari was hearing a writ petition filed challenging the order dated March 31, 2026 passed by the Commissioner, Excise, in an appeal filed by respondent no. 5. The appeal had questioned the opening of the petitioner's liquor sub-shop at Lolti, District Chamoli, on the ground that the business of respondent no. 5's liquor shop at Tharali was adversely affected. The Commissioner allowed the appeal and directed that the sub-shop be relocated to another place near Gwaldam, where the petitioner's main liquor shop was allotted.
The petitioner contended that there was no provision in the Excise Act, Excise Rules or Excise Policy prescribing any maximum distance between a main shop and a sub-shop opened by a licensee and that loss of revenue to another liquor shop licensee could not, by itself, be a ground for disturbing the sub-shop.
The Court noted that permission to open the sub-shop had been given to the petitioner as per the applicable Excise Policy vide order dated August 8, 2024. It found substance in the petitioner's contention that the appeal was barred by limitation and was also not maintainable, as there was no order which had been challenged in the appeal.
The Court further observed that Rule 28.4(b), which was reproduced in the impugned order, enables the District Magistrate to relocate a shop from one place to another within the district. Thus, the power under the said provision was not available to the Commissioner, Excise.
The Court further held that Excise could not have interfered with the petitioner's sub-shop only on the ground that the revenue of the shop run by respondent no. 5 was adversely affected.
“… in the absence of any provision regarding distance between two liquor shops, main shop or sub-shop, prescribed in the Excise Act, Excise Rules or Excise Policy, the Commissioner, Excise could not have interfered with the sub-shop of the petitioner only on the ground that revenue of the shop run by respondent no. 5 is adversely affected,” the Court remarked.
The Court accordingly set aside the impugned order and allowed the writ petition.
Case Title: Vivek Shah v. State of Uttarakhand [WPMS No. 862 of 2026]