2025:UHC:6182-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/852/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. 1. Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Appellant was granted licence for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) during the excise year 2018-19. District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar issued a notice to him on 01.09.2018, asking him to deposit ₹95,05,017/- towards loss in Excise Revenue, within one week. The said order was challenged by appellant in WPMS No. 3092 of 2018, which was dismissed and against dismissal of writ petition, he has filed this intra- court appeal. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that licence for retail sale of IMFL was issued to appellant on 19.05.2018, however, because of public outcry, he could not operate the shop even for a single day and the shop was sealed on the order of District Magistrate on 20.05.2018, therefore, the demand, raised by District Magistrate, is unjust. 6. Per contra, learned State Counsel submits that appellant has the remedy of filing appeal under Section 11 of the Excise Act and he approached the Writ Court bypassing the said statutory remedy, therefore, the writ petition was rightly dismissed by learned Single Judge. He further submits that for this very 2025:UHC:6182-DB reason, this intra-court appeal is also not maintainable. 7. We find substance in the said submission made by learned State Counsel. Since appellant has statutory remedy of appeal under Section 11 of the Excise Act, therefore, writ petition filed by him was liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. For the same reason, this appeal would also not be maintainable. 8. In such view of the matter, we dismiss the special appeal as well as the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy and permit the appellant to file appeal before the Excise Commissioner, within two weeks from today. If he files appeal within two weeks, the same shall be considered and decided on merits by ignoring the question of limitation, as petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has deposited a sum of ₹20.00 lakh, in terms of order of this Court dated 23.10.2018 before District Excise Officer, Udham Singh Nagar. 10. If that is so, the amount, already deposited by the appellant, shall be factored in, while reckoning the amount which appellant is liable to deposit in terms of statutory provisions at the time of filing of the appeal. For a period of three weeks, no coercive action shall be taken against the appellant pursuant to the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by District Magistrate, Udham Singh Nagar. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.07.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a 08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DA CF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.07.16 04:10:46 -07'00' 2025:UHC:6182-DB