HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1347 of 2025 (M/S) Navneet Agarwal ….....Petitioner Versus Commissioner Excise and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (a) A writ or direction in nature of certiorari quashing the Letter/Order No. -/Nua/vidhi/357-Appeal (Navneet Agarwal/-Kali Suchi/2025-26/Dehradun dated 02.05.2025 passed by respondent no.1 whereby despite of the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 09.08.2024 in WPMB 318/2024 whereby the Hon’ble Court while relegating to appeal authority gave liberty to seek exemption and the exemption application was also filed but without deciding the same the impugned order dated 02.05.2025 (Annexure-6) has been passed by the respondent no.1. (b) Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case. (c) To award cost throughout to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The petitioner was allotted a liquor shop. He was blacklisted. Therefore, the petitioner had filed WPMB No.318 of 2024, Navneet Agarwal Vs. State of Uttarakhand, which was decided on 09.08.2024. While referring to the provision of Section 11 of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910, the Court had then observed that:- “5. Upon perusal of the aforesaid statutory provision, we find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. 6. Since, petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal, therefore, we decline to entertain this writ petition. 7. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed with liberty reserved to petitioner to approach the appropriate forum. However, it shall be open to petitioner to seek exemption from requirement of pre deposit.” 4. The petitioner did approach the appropriate forum by way of filing an appeal under Section 11(1) of the Act. But, by the 2 impugned order dated 02.05.2025, the petitioner is required to deposit 25 per cent of the disputed amount. It is impugned. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had challenged the order by which he was blacklisted. There was no revenue involved. Therefore, there is no question of depositing 25 per cent of any amount. 6. The Court wanted to know from learned counsel for the petitioner that after availing the remedy under Section 11(1) of the Act, why the petitioner cannot approach the authorities under Section 11(2) of the Act? 7. To it, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the appeal proceedings under Section 11(1) of the Act, the petitioner had been asked to make a pre deposit, and similar treatment will be given to the petitioner if he approaches under Section 11(2) of the Act. 8. This Court, in the first petition, had given an option to the petitioner to seek exemption from requirement of pre deposit. The petitioner may very well seek such exemption while pursuing his remedy under Section 11(2) of the Act. Therefore, in view of the statutory remedy of revision, the writ petition may not be entertained. 9. The writ petition is dismissed with the liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. The petitioner is always free to seek exemption from requirement of pre deposit. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 10.06.2025 Ravi Bisht