UKHC010071792026 2026:UHC:5481-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (M/B) No.349 of 2026 7th July, 2026 Deepak Kumar Thapa -----Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and Others ----Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Tanmay Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent no.5. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the following relief: “A. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing Clause 46 of the General Instructions dated 3rd of February 2026 ultravires the powers vested by the Excise policy dated 5th of March 2025, the provisions for opening the sub shops for the financial year 2026-27 and 2027-28 has been made. The aforesaid instructions are contrary to the provisions contained in excise policy dated 5th of March 2025 and without there being any policy decision taken by the State Government in this regard under the garb of General Instructions dated 3rd of February 2026, such a provision has been made.. (Annexure No.3 to this writ petition), Page No.76. B. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari be quashing the letter of allotment dated 31st of March 2026 issued in favour of private respondent No.5, whereby the Sub Shop 1 UKHC010071792026 2026:UHC:5481-DB from Miyawala to Jogiwala Chowk of Indian Made Foreign Liquor Shop, Mohkampur has been allotted contrary to the provisions of Excise Policy dated 05.03.2025. (Annexure No.7 to this writ petition), Page No.101.” 3. On 06.05.2026, the following order was passed: “1. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Additional Advocate General for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 4. 3. Mr. B.S. Adhikari, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 4. The submission of leaned counsel for the petitioner is that under Excise Policy dated 05.03.2025 there was specific prohibition for opening of any new sub-shop during F.Y. 2025- 26, but now under the garb of General Instructions issued by Excise Commissioner on 03.02.2026, particularly Clause 46 thereof, the respondents have approved a new sub-shop at Mohkampur at a site where no such sub-shop was ever in existence in the past. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 seeks time to obtain specific instructions as to whether sub-shop sanctioned by District Excise Officer, Dehradun vide order dated 31.03.2026 was in operation during the Excise Year 2024-25, and also whether the sub-shop now approved at Mohkampur is for the same site or a different one. 6. List on 14.05.2026, as fresh.” 4. By another order passed on 19.05.2026, we directed the Secretary Excise, Government of Uttarakhand to file his affidavit and clarify the stand of the State Government in respect of the prohibition contained in Clause 3.14 of the Excise Policy. Pursuant thereto, the Principal Secretary, Excise Department filed his affidavit 2 UKHC010071792026 2026:UHC:5481-DB wherein he supported the Excise Policy and took the stand that the permission for operating subshop of foreign liquor at Mohkampur was not in conformity with Clause 3.14 of the Excise Policy. 5. Since we noticed that there was conflict in the stand taken by the State Government and the Excise Commissioner, therefore, in terms of Clause 37 of the Excise Policy, we referred the matter for decision by the Committee headed by the Chief Secretary as contemplated under the said clause. 6. Learned Deputy Advocate General has placed on record the instructions received from the Principal Secretary along with the decision dated 12.06.2026 taken in the meeting of the Committee chaired by the Chief Secretary. The Member-Secretary of the said Committee was the same Excise Commissioner who had earlier taken a stand different from that taken by the Principal Secretary Excise in his affidavit. The Committee has concurred with the stand of the State Government and has arrived at the following conclusion: “7- lfefr }kjk çdj.k ds rF;ksa ij fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA fopkjksijkUr çdj.k esa lfefr }kjk fuEuor fcUnqvksa ds vkyksd esa erfLFkj fd;k x;k fd%& ¼i½ vkcdkjh vk;qä] mÙkjk[k.M }kjk vius vkns'k fnukad 20-03-2026 esa mÙkjk[k.M f=o"khZ; vkcdkjh uhfr 2025&2028 ds fu;e 3-14 ds Øe esa jktLo fgr esa tuin nsgjknwu ds vUrxZr foÙkh; o"kZ 2024&25 gsrq lapkfyr ns'kh@fons'kh efnjk dh minqdkuksa dks foÙkh; o"kZ 2026&27 o 2027&28 esa lapkfyr fd;s tkus gsrq vuqeksnu çnku fd;k x;k gS bl çdkj vkcdkjh vk;qä] }kjk ç'uxr fons'kh efnjk nqdku eksgdeiqj dh minqdku dks u u;h txg esa lapkyu ds lEcU/k esa vkSj u gh u;s LFkku ij u;h minqdku [kksys tkus ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ vuqefr nh x;h gSA bl çdkj 3 UKHC010071792026 2026:UHC:5481-DB vkcdkjh vk;qä }kjk ç'uxr minqdku uohu LFkku ij lapkfyr djus ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k tkjh ugha fd;k x;k gSA ¼ii½ vkcdkjh vk;qä ds i= laå 22958 fnukad 03 Qjojh] 2026 }kjk o"kZ 2026&28 o 2027&28 dh vof/k gsrq lhå,yå&5lh ¼ns'kh 'kjkc o ch;j½ ,oa ,Qå,yå&5Mh ¼fons'kh efnjk o ch;j½ dh QqVdj nqdkuksa ds O;oLFkkiu ,oa vU; vuqKkiuksa ds lEcU/k esa tkjh lkekU; funsZ'k ds fcUnq la[;k&46 esa mYys[k gS fd foÙkh; o"kZ 2024&25 esa efnjk dh nqdkusa ftudh minqdkusa Loh—r dh x;h Fkh] vkcdkjh jktLo fgr esa mu minqdkuksa dks vkxkeh foÙkh; o"kZ 2026&27 o 2027&28 esa vkcdkjh vk;qä dh vuqefr ds i'pkr~ vkxkeh 02 o"kksaZ gsrq ,d lkFk vuqKkiu 'kqYd tek djkus ij lapkfyr fd;k tk ldsxkA^^ ;g funsZ'k fcUnq 46 vkcdkjh uhfr 2025&28 esa fufgr fu;e 3-14 ds vuqlkj ugha gSA bl lEcU/k esa fn'kk&funsZ'k laca/kh i= fnukad 03 Qjojh] 2026 ds fcUnq la[;k&46 dks fu;e 3-14 ¼foÙkh; o"kZ 2025&26 esa minqdkusa uol`ftr ugha dh tk;sxh fdUrq foxr o"kZ 2024&25 esa lqpk: :i ls lapkfyr minqdkuksa dks vkxkeh foÙkh; o"kZ 2025&26 esa lapkyu dk vuqeksnu vkcdkjh vk;qä ls O;oLFkkiu dh çfØ;k ls iwoZ gh çkIr djuk gksxkA foÙkh; o 2025&26 esa tulaosnukvksa ,oa dkuwu O;oLFkk ds –f"Vxr vkcdkjh vk;qä foÙkh; o"kZ 2024&25 esa lapkfyr fdlh Hkh minqdku dks iw.kZ :i ls can dj ldsaxs] blds fy, vuqKkih }kjk jktLo okilh dk vuqjks/k Lohdkj ugha gksxk½ ds vuqlkj la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk mfpr gksxkA vr% lexz çkfLFkfr dks –f"Vxr lfefr }kjk ;g er @ lgefr çnku dh x;h gS fd fons'kh efnjk nqdku eksgdeiqj dh minqdku ds lEcU/k esa vkcdkjh vk;qä ds Lrj ls dksbZ vkns'k fuxZr ugha gqvk gS vfirq mÙkjk[k.M f=o"khZ; vkcdkjh uhfr 2025&2028 ds fu;e 3-14 ds Øe esa jktLo fgr esa tuin nsgjknwu ds vUrxZr lapkfyr minqdkuks ds lEcU/k esa vkns'k fnukad 20-03-2026 fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA tgka rd vkcdkjh vk;qä ds i= fnukad 03 Qjojh] 2026 ds ek/;e ls fuxZr fn'kk&funsZ'kksa ds fcUnq la[;k&46 dk ç'u gS] rks mä fcUnq vkcdkjh uhfr esa fufgr fu;e 3-14 ds vuqlkj ugha gSA vr% vkcdkjh vk;qä }kjk mä dks fu;ekuqlkj la'kksf/kr fd;k tk,A lkFk gh vkcdkjh uhfr esa fufgr çkfo/kkuksa ds v/khu l{ke çkf/kdkjh }kjk ç'uxr minqdku dks iw.kZr% can fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk,A” 7. Learned Deputy Advocate General has also placed for our perusal a circular letter dated 06.07.2026 issued by Excise Commissioner addressed to All District Magistrates / Licensing Authorities, Uttarakhand in which it has been clarified that only such subshops which were duly approved and were operational in the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26 would be entitled to approval / operate in financial years 2026-27 and 2027-28. The said 4 UKHC010071792026 2026:UHC:5481-DB circular letter has been issued in pursuance of the decision taken by the Committee in its meeting dated 12.06.2026. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner, who has initially raised objection that the shop in question is still in operation, after seeking further instructions, states that the shop has now been closed. 9. In view of the fact that the Committee envisaged under Clause 37 of the Excise Policy has already taken decision in the matter and the shop in question has been closed, therefore, nothing further survives for consideration in the instant petition. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. 11. Shri Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent tried to contend that the decision of the Committee is illegal but we are not inclined to examine the said issue in the present writ petition and reserve liberty to the private respondent to challenge the decision of the Committee in independent proceedings, if so advised. (MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.) (SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 07.07.2026 SS 5