1 2026:CGHC:26241-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPPIL No. 37 of 2026 Khilwan Chandrakar Son Of Shri Bhushanlal Chandrakar, Aged About 64 Years Resident Of Azad Chowk Brahmad Para Kurud, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh, Mobile No. -9425040004 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise) Department, Government Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar. 3 - Excise Commissioner, State Excise Department, First Floor, North Block, Sector -19 Commercial Tax And G.S.T. Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh -492002 4 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters (P.H.Q.) Sector -19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh -492002 5 - Economic Offences Wing /Anti -Corruption Bureau, G.E. Road,opposite Jai jawan Petrol Pump Raipur (C.G.) 6 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department Revenue, North Block, New Delhi -110001. 7 - Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Zonal Director, Raipur Zonal Office 2nd Floor, Netaji Subhas Stadium, Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ... Respondent(s) {Cause title Taken from Case Information System} For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar (through Video Conferencing) and Mr. K.V.Gupta, Advocate. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.30 11:12:59 +0530 2 Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 29/06/2026 1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the State/respondent No. 1 to 5, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the Union of India/respondent No. 6 as well as Mr. B.Gopa Kumar and Mr. K.V.Gupta, Advocates for the respondent No. 7. 2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks for the following relief(s): “10.1. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction directing Respondent State Authorities to place before this Hon'ble Court details of all regulatory action initiated under Sections 31 and 34 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 against distillery operators, license holders, transporters and associated entities implicated in investigations relating to unlawful liquor circulation from 2020 onwards; 10.2. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction, directing constitution of an Independent High-Level Monitoring Committee/SIT under supervision of this Hon'ble Court to examine systemic failures, regulatory deficiencies, institutional accountability and enforcement mechanisms within the State excise framework; 10.3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to establish a real-time digital verification mechanism, including a centralized and tamper- proof database of transport permits, accessible to all enforcement agencies, to prevent duplication, misuse and manipulation of permits; 3 10.4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to implement mandatory mapping of permits with specific vehicle details, quantity of consignment and destination, to ensure traceability and prevent deviation or misuse during transportation; 10.5. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to conduct a State-wide audit of transport permits issued under the Excise regime to identify instances of duplication, misuse, irregular issuance and assess consequent loss to the public exchequer; 10.6. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to adopt modern technological tools, including QR-code based permits, GPS tracking of consignments and automated alert systems, to ensure transparency and traceability in movement of excisable goods; 10.7. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to frame and implement guidelines or standard operating procedures (SOPs) for strict monitoring of transportation of liquor and prevention of diversion into illegal supply chains; 10.8. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to take effective steps to curb circulation of illicit liquor, including strengthening enforcement mechanisms and ensuring strict compliance with statutory provisions; 10.9. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent State Authorities to undertake immediate scrutiny, review, suspension and/or cancellation proceedings under Sections 31 and 34 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 against distilleries, manufacturers, bottling units, transporters and license holders prima facie found involved in unlawful manufacture, transportation, distribution, storage or sale of illicit 4 and unaccounted country liquor, including entities against whom charge-sheets, prosecution complaints, attachment proceedings or judicial observations exist in relation to the Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam; 10.10.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent State Authorities to place before this Hon'ble Court the complete particulars of licences granted, renewed or continued in favour of distillery operators and country liquor manufacturers against whom proceedings, investigations, ECIRs, prosecution complaints, supplementary charge- sheets or attachment proceedings are pending before the EOW/ACB, Directorate of Enforcement or competent Courts; 10.11.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent State Authorities to conduct a comprehensive forensic and financial audit of the production, dispatch, bottling, hologram utilisation, stock accounting and transportation records of country liquor manufacturers and distilleries operating in the State during the period 2019 onwards, including but not limited to entities named in investigations and judicial proceedings; 10.12.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent Authorities to investigate and fix accountability of officers of the Excise Department and associated authorities who failed to invoke statutory powers under Sections 31 and 34 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 despite availability of material regarding unlawful manufacture and circulation of liquor; 10.13.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing constitution of a Special Investigation Team/Independent Supervisory Committee to monitor action against distillery operators and country liquor manufacturers allegedly involved in illegal supply chains, duplicate hologram operations, unaccounted liquor circulation and diversion of excise revenue; 10.14.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the Respondent State Authorities to ensure that no renewal, 5 extension, fresh allotment or continuation of excise licences is granted to any distillery/manufacturer against whom cognizable offences, prosecution complaints or proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are pending in relation to unlawful liquor operations, without first undertaking a statutory review under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915; 10.15.Pass any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, to protect the environment, public health, and uphold the rule of law.” 3. Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present public interest litigation petition has been instituted to address the alleged systemic failure in the regulatory and enforcement mechanism governing the liquor trade in the State of Chhattisgarh, resulting in substantial loss to public revenue, erosion of institutional accountability, and serious concerns relating to public health and safety. It is contended that the petitioner, being a journalist and public affairs commentator, has relied upon material available in the public domain, including the FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti- Corruption Bureau, proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, charge- sheets filed before the competent Court, and judicial orders passed from time to time in connected proceedings. 4. Learned counsel submits that the investigation conducted by the EOW/ACB and the Directorate of Enforcement prima facie discloses the existence of an organised liquor syndicate involving certain public servants, private intermediaries, licensed distillery operators and other entities, which allegedly facilitated the manufacture, transportation and sale of unaccounted liquor through a parallel distribution mechanism, 6 causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. It is further submitted that notwithstanding the pendency of such investigations and the filing of charge-sheets and prosecution complaints alleging offences under the Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, no effective regulatory action has been initiated by the State authorities against the licence holders and other entities allegedly involved in the unlawful activities. 5. It is further contended that the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 casts a statutory obligation upon the competent authorities to regulate the manufacture, transport and sale of liquor and empowers them, inter alia, to suspend or cancel licences and take penal action in cases of violation of the statutory provisions. According to the petitioner, the continued inaction of the authorities in invoking the powers conferred under Sections 31 and 34 of the Act demonstrates a failure to discharge their statutory duties and has enabled the continuation of unlawful practices within the excise regime. 6. Learned counsel further submits that the consequences of such regulatory failure are not confined to financial loss to the State but have wider ramifications on public health and safety, as the circulation of unregulated and unaccounted liquor increases the risk of adulterated and spurious liquor entering the market. Reference has been made to incidents of illicit liquor tragedies reported in different parts of the country, as also to international regulatory practices emphasising end-to-end traceability, technological monitoring and coordinated enforcement mechanisms. It is, therefore, urged that appropriate directions be issued to the respondent authorities to enforce the statutory provisions in their true spirit, take consequential action against persons and entities found 7 involved in the alleged irregularities, and strengthen the regulatory framework governing the manufacture, transportation and distribution of liquor in the State so as to ensure transparency, accountability and protection of public interest. 7. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the State/respondents No. 1 to 5, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondent No. 6/Union of India as well as Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that it is the own say of the petitioner that FIR has been registered against the delinquent persons including the government officials for the offences in question and the matters are subjudice before the competent Court of law and as such, this petition being bereft of merit. The petitioner, by way of this petition has sought for number of relief(s) which cannot be granted in any way as the relief sought has to be specific and no blanket order can be issued in favour of the petitioner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 9. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that despite investigations conducted by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau and the Directorate of Enforcement in relation to the alleged liquor scam in the State, the competent authorities have not initiated adequate regulatory proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 against certain licence holders, distillery operators and other entities. On that premise, the petitioner seeks a series of directions requiring this Court to monitor regulatory action, constitute an independent committee/Special Investigation Team, direct forensic and financial 8 audits, compel implementation of technological reforms in the excise administration and issue various consequential directions relating to suspension, cancellation and renewal of licences. 10.It is not in dispute that the allegations forming the basis of the present petition are already the subject matter of investigation by the competent investigating agencies. The petitioner himself has relied upon the FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau, proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement, prosecution complaints, charge-sheets and judicial proceedings pending before the competent Courts. Thus, the criminal law has already been set into motion and the competent authorities are seized of the matter. 11.The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is intended to ensure enforcement of legal and constitutional rights and to compel performance of statutory duties where a clear failure to discharge such duties is demonstrated. However, the Court, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of the executive or undertake continuous supervision over administrative and regulatory functions, except in exceptional circumstances where a complete breakdown of the rule of law or manifest arbitrariness is established. 12.The reliefs sought in the present petition are, in substance, directions requiring this Court to supervise the functioning of the Excise Department, monitor investigations, direct initiation of proceedings against unspecified licence holders, order constitution of an SIT or monitoring committee, prescribe future policy measures, mandate introduction of technological mechanisms and frame regulatory protocols for administration of the excise regime. These are matters which primarily 9 fall within the domain of the Executive and the statutory authorities entrusted with administration of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915. 13.A writ of mandamus can be issued only when a specific statutory duty exists and there is a corresponding demonstrable failure on the part of the authority to perform such duty. The petitioner has not placed any material before this Court establishing that despite availability of legally admissible material against any particular licence holder, the competent authority has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Act. Mere reliance upon allegations contained in investigation reports or prosecution complaints cannot, by itself, justify issuance of a blanket direction compelling initiation of proceedings under Sections 31 and 34 of the Act against all entities allegedly involved. 14.Equally untenable is the prayer seeking constitution of an independent committee or Special Investigation Team under the supervision of this Court. Such directions are issued only in rare and exceptional situations where existing investigative mechanisms are shown to have failed or where the Court is satisfied that investigation by the statutory agencies is neither fair nor effective. No such exceptional circumstance has been established in the present case. On the contrary, the material relied upon by the petitioner itself indicates that investigations have been conducted by competent agencies and criminal proceedings are pending before the jurisdictional Courts. 15.Likewise, the prayers seeking introduction of QR code-based permits, GPS tracking, digital verification systems, transport audit mechanisms, formulation of standard operating procedures and other administrative reforms are essentially matters of governmental policy. It is well settled that policy choices relating to administration and regulation ordinarily fall 10 within the executive domain and are not amenable to judicial directions unless found to be arbitrary, unconstitutional or contrary to any statutory mandate. No such case has been made out. 16.We are also of the considered opinion that most of the reliefs sought are omnibus and general in nature. The petitioner seeks broad directions affecting an entire regulatory framework without identifying any specific decision or omission which is amenable to judicial review. Such blanket directions cannot be issued in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 17.We also find that the petitioner has failed to establish any sufficient locus to maintain the present public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to be a journalist and public affairs commentator and has founded the present petition entirely on material already available in the public domain, including FIRs, charge-sheets, prosecution complaints and judicial proceedings. It is not the petitioner's case that he is an aggrieved person or that any legal injury has been caused to him personally. More importantly, the very material relied upon by the petitioner demonstrates that the competent investigating agencies have already registered criminal cases, conducted investigations, filed charge-sheets and set the criminal law in motion against the alleged delinquent persons. Once the statutory authorities have already initiated proceedings against the persons concerned, it is difficult to appreciate the petitioner's insistence on seeking further omnibus directions from this Court. In the absence of any material to show deliberate inaction, mala fides or failure of the authorities to discharge their statutory obligations, the present petition appears to be an attempt to secure judicial monitoring of matters already being dealt with by the competent authorities, which is impermissible in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 11 18.It is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations. 19.The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. 20.The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes, as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey v. State of West Bengal, {(2004) 3 SCC 349}. In State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others, {2010 AIR SCW 1029}, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has been abused at Para 143 by observing as under: “143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must 12 be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in the larger interest of the people of this country but we must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by the courts.” 21.The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand Mishra, reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v. H.S. Chowdhary, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under: “12. It is depressing to note that on account of such trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts, innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering and developing the laudable concept of PIL and extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard; yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue delay in service matters—government or private, persons awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public interest litigation and get into the courts by filing vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.” 22.The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab & Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant 13 as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and locus standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. The court has to strike balance between two conflicting interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for oblique motives, justifiable executive actions. 23.In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 24.The security amount deposited by the petitioner also stands forfeited. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Brijmohan / Amit