Uttarakhand High Court
9 February vs State Of Uttarakhand on 19 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:1108
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 699 of 2025
19 February, 2026
Kuldeep Singh Bisht
--Petitioner
Versus
1: State of Uttarakhand
2: Uttarakhand Excise Commissioner
3: District Magistrate
4: District Excise Officer
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. V K Kaparuwan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Dy.A.G. for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.01.2025 passed by respondent no.1 in the revision filed u/s 11(2) of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act') and order dated 29.04.2023 passed by respondent no.3 whereby the exemption application filed in appeal u/s 11(1) of the Act was rejected.
2. Petitioner was allotted a liquor shop for the years 2021-22 and 2022-23 by respondent no.3 for an amount of Rs.3,65,00,000/- and Rs.2,86,06,255/- respectively. Petitioner failed to deposit MMGD and went in arrears of Rs.40,68,813/- in all. Despite notice, he failed to deposit said amount. Vide letter dated 13.03.20 23, respondent no.3 cancelled the petitioner's licence for not depositing the Minimum Monthly Guarantee Deposit (MMGD). It is feeling aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal u/s 11(1) of the Act. Under the First Proviso to Section 11(1) 1 2026:UHC:1108 of the Act, at the time of filing appeal, petitioner was required to deposit the statutory deposit 25% of the disputed amount to be recovered. The application has been moved by the petitioner for exemption of statutory deposit in appeal. The said application was rejected by the appellate authority and the petitioner was granted 20 days' time to make the deposit by impugned order dated 29.04.2022 passed by Excise Commissioner. Since such deposit was not made by the petitioner within the prescribed time, the appeal was also deemed to be dismissed. The petitioner then went in revision before the State Government against the order of rejection of his application in appeal. The revision too was dismissed by the revisional authority by impugned order dated 27.01.2025. It is feeling aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in similar set of facts, exemption has been granted to make the statutory deposit to the extent of 12.5% to the similarly situated appellants but in the case of petitioner, such discretion has not been exercised by the appellate authority. Therefore the order passed by the appellate authority is discriminatory and against law. He further submits that the revisional authority has not given any consideration to the petitioner's request to exercise discretion to the petitioner and accordingly both the orders are against law.
4. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the law provides security deposit to the tune of 25% and by way of second proviso, discretion has been given to the appellate authority to waive or relax the requirements of the proviso for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in writing. Both the provisos are quoted below: -
"11. Appeals and revisions ......................
(1) .................................
Provided that no appeal shall be entertained under sub-section (1) unless it is preferred by the aggrieved person within thirty days from the date of 2 2026:UHC:1108 communication of such order, and unless the appellant has furnished satisfactory proof of having paid a sum of not less than 25 per cent, of the disputed amount of tax, fee, penalty or other dues, if any, as the case may be :
Provided further that the appellate authority may, for special and adequate reasons to be recorded in writing waive or relax the requirements of the preceding proviso in respect of such disputed amount of tax, fees, penalty or other dues."
5. I have gone through the provision carefully whereby discretion has been granted to the appellate authority to waive and relax the condition of security deposit on special reasons to be recorded in writing. The contention raised by petitioner that he was discriminated against by the appellate authority is not tenable for the reason that the discretion has to be granted by the appellate authority and he has exercised such discretion which depends upon case to case. Petitioner cannot claim discretion as a matter of right. It is the subjective satisfaction of the appellate authority. It is very clearly mentioned in the impugned order dated 29.04.2023, that petitioner failed to produce any such facts which made him entitled to any relaxation. The present case cannot be equated with those cases which were there before the appellate authority.
6. This Court does not find any illegality in the impugned orders, which calls for any interference.
7. The writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 19.02.2026 R.Dang 3