Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 7021 (UTT)

MUKESH PHARTIYA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/1844/2026 · 2026-06-17

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

UKHC010104602026 2026:UHC:4938 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1844/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Deep Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 2. Petitioner was granted license for retail sale of country liquor for two Financial Years i.e. 2026-2027 and 2027-2028. 3. License granted to petitioner was cancelled by District Magistrate, Almora vide order dated 15.04.2026. Petitioner filed Appeal against the said order, which was allowed by Excise Commissioner vide order dated 25.04.2026. According to petitioner, despite order passed by Appellate Authority, petitioner is not being permitted to open his retail shop. 4. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 (District Magistrate, Almora) and Respondent No. 4 (District Excise Officer, Almora) to immediately implement, execute, and give full effect to the statutory Appellate Order dated April 25, 2026 (Annexure No. 4) passed by the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand, and provide necessary administrative clearance and police protection for the smooth opening and operation of the Petitioner's Country Liquor Shop at the transferred Bhujan location, District Almora. (Page No. 22-24) UKHC010104602026 2026:UHC:4938 II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to decide the formal representation dated May 29, 2026 (Annexure No. 5) preferred by the Petitioner within a strict, expedited timeline to ensure the containment of commercial and revenue loss. (Page No. 25-26).” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has made representation to District Magistrate on 29.05.2026 which is on record as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Since no decision has been taken thereupon, therefore petitioner has approached this Court. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that decision if not already taken shall be taken expeditiously. 7. Having regard to the huge amount deposited by petitioner as license fee, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to District Magistrate concerned to consider and decide representation of petitioner, as per law, within ten days from date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.06.2026 Mahinder/