2025:HHC:30880 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 504 of 2025 Reserved on: 05.09.2025 Decided on: 10.09.2025. Nardeep Singh .…. Petitioner Versus State of H.P. & others. .Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner: Mr.N.S.Chandel, Senior Advocate, with Mr. K.S.Gill, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of order dated 19.05.2025 passed by learned Sub Divisional Magistrate (SDM), Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., under Section 163 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS),2023. 2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioner was the successful bidder of unit No. 40 (Jawalaji) in the sale of retail vends through the auction 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes 2 2025:HHC:30880 process for the year 2025-26. He submitted an application to ASTEO, Dehra,District Kangra, H.P., to shift his liquor vend L14 from Tihri Road Amb Pathiar to Tihri Road Amb Pathiar Chowk, stating that the sale of liquor was less at the old location and he was unable to pay the excise dues. ASTEO, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. submitted a report that the proposed location fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in the Excise Policy and recommended changing the location of the liquor vend. The Collector Excise- cum-Joint Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise, North Zone Palampur, H.P. granted the permission to shift the retail vend from the current location to the new location at Tihri Road, Amb Pathiar Chowk. 3. Learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., noticed that the liquor vend was being established on the National Highway, Jawalaji to Nadaun Road near Government Degree College, Jawalamukhi, instead of the approved location at Tihri Road, Amb Pathiar Chowk. This discrepancy created confusion and potential law and order problems, as per the representation received from residents. Hence, learned SDM, Jawalmukhi, District Kangra, H.P. ordered the suspension of liquor vend L-14 of the petitioner with immediate effect till the receipt of proper clarification regarding the approved location was received and 3 2025:HHC:30880 procedural requirements as per the Excise Policy 2025-26 was fully complied with. 4. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., had no jurisdiction under the Excise Act. There was no threat to public peace or any untoward incident, but only a discrepancy in the relocation. The Excise authorities were to verify the relocation as per the orders, and the learned SDM had no jurisdiction to order the closure of the liquor vend. No public nuisance or safety was involved in the present case. The power to close the liquor vend is vested with the District Magistrate, that too for 24 hours at a time. The petitioner was suffering a loss of ₹20,000/- per day. The liquor vend was not near any religious or educational institution. This fact was verified by the excise officials. The petitioner had completed all the requirements under the Excise and Taxation laws. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned SDM, Jawalmukhi, District Kangra, H.P., be set aside. 5. The petition is opposed by filing a reply admitting that the petitioner was the successful bidder and that he had applied for the relocation of the liquor vend, which was approved. It was 4 2025:HHC:30880 asserted that the site map of the new location was verified by the concerned Circle Excise Officer and countersigned by DCST&E (Excise), District Kangra, H.P. The liquor vend was shifted after approval and issuance of a valid pass by Circle ASTEO, Dehra, District Kangra, H.P. No order was passed by the Excise authorities for the closure of the liquor vend. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 6. I have heard Mr. N.S.Chandel, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K.S.Gill, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondent/State. 7. Mr. N.S. Chandel, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned SDM has no jurisdiction to order the closure of the liquor vend after the permission was accorded by the excise authorities. The learned SDM can only maintain law and order, and he has no concern with the location of the liquor vend. Any order passed by him would have remained in force for only two months, but the liquor vend has not been opened despite the lapse of more than two months. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., be set aside. 5 2025:HHC:30880 8. Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents/State, submitted that the respondents had granted permission to the petitioner for relocation. Learned SDM noted that the liquor vend was being opened near the educational institution, and there was an apprehension of breach of peace. Learned SDM was justified in taking action in the matter. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed. 9. I have given considerable thought to submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 10. Learned SDM, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P., passed an order in exercise of the power conferred upon him under Section 163 of the BNSS. Section 163 of BNSS reads as under:- Section 163Power to issue order in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. (1) In cases where, in the opinion of a District Magistrate, a Sub-divisional Magistrate or any other Executive Magistrate specially empowered by the State Government in this behalf, there is sufficient ground for proceeding under this section and immediate prevention or speedy remedy is desirable, such Magistrate may, by a written order stating the material facts of the case and served in the manner provided by section 153, direct any person to abstain from a certain act or to take certain order with respect to certain property in his possession or under his management, if such Magistrate considers that such direction is likely to prevent, or tends to 6 2025:HHC:30880 prevent, obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed, or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquility, or a riot, or an affray. (2) An order under this section may, in cases of emergency or in cases where the circumstances do not admit of the serving in due time of a notice upon the person against whom the order is directed, be passed ex parte. (3) An order under this section may be directed to a particular individual, or to persons residing in a particular place or area, or to the public generally when frequenting or visiting a particular place or area. (4) No order under this section shall remain in force for more than two months from the making thereof: 11. This Section empowers the learned SDM to take action in urgent cases of nuisance or apprehended danger. An exparte order can be passed if there is some emergency or where the circumstances do not admit the serving of the notice in due time. 12. In the present case, the learned SDM had noticed that there was some confusion and potential law and order problem in the area. He did not mention that there was any nuisance or apprehended danger. He had not satisfied himself that he could not serve notice in due time upon the petitioner. He simply proceeded on the basis that the liquor vend was being shifted to an unapproved place. Even if it was so, the jurisdiction vested with the Excise authorities, who were competent to take action in the matter. The Excise authorities 7 2025:HHC:30880 have filed their affidavits stating that they had granted the approval, and the site plan was verified.They did not state that a liquor vend was being opened in an unapproved area. Therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have ordered the closure of the liquor vend when the competent authorities were satisfied that there was no violation. Hence, the learned SDM had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him, and the order passed by him cannot be sustained. 13. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed, and the order dated 19.05.2025 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jawalamukhi, District Kangra, H.P. is set aside. 14. The present petition is disposed of accordingly, so also the pending applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 10th September 2025. (ravinder)