Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1810/2025 on 11 February, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings or
SL. No. Date directions and
Registrar's order with
COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
Signatures
WPMS No.1810 of 2025
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Dy.A.G. with Mr. B.S. Koranga, learned B.H. for the State.
3. Heard on the Interim Relief Application (IA/1/2025).
4. Vide order dated 03.03.2021, the petitioner was allotted an Indian made Liquor Shop at Dharchula, Pithoragarh for the financial year 2021-2022 for an amount of Rs.8,07,84,108/- and for financial year 2022-2023 for Rs.6,37,65,000/-. It is the case of petitioner that due to onset of Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner's shop remained closed, and therefore, she could not make the payment of Monthly Minimum Guarantee Due (MMGD) to the State Government and went in arrears. It is also contended that throughout the State, exemption was granted to the similarly situated licensees, but in the case of petitioner, the District Excise Officer, Pithoragarh cancelled the licence of petitioner on 21.03.2022. It is clarified by learned counsel for petitioner that exemption was granted by the State Govt. to other licensees subsequent to the cancellation of licence of the petitioner. Due to the cancellation of licence, the shop remained completely closed and the same was re-settled to some other person on 08.04.2022.
5. The respondent-District Excise Officer, Pithoragarh raised a demand of Rs.1,64,56,606/- plus recovery charges. The same could not be paid by the petitioner and now the amount has swollen to Rs.3,19,82,050/-. The petitioner failed to make payment of aforesaid amount. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner challenged the said order of cancellation by filing an appeal before the Commissioner, Kumaon Division which was dismissed. Thereafter, she preferred a revision which also met with the same fate. Now, the petitioner is before this Court.
6. The main ground to challenge the order passed by the authority concerned is that the petitioner claimed high discrimination on the part of respondent-Department besides application of pick and choose method so far as cancellation of licence is concerned. It is also argued that the land of the petitioner has now been attached by the Department for recovery of amount due against her and it is prayed that auction should not be made and no third party interest be created upon such property.
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel argued that the licence has already been cancelled, therefore, the petitioner cannot raise the plea that she has been discriminated against.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record of case, this Court is of the view that there is some substance in the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. It is, therefore, directed that during pendency of present writ petition, the attached land of the petitioner shall not be auctioned nor any kind of third party interest would be created there-upon.
10. Petitioner may file her rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed by the State within four weeks.
11. List on 28.04.2026.
12. Interim relief application stands disposed of accordingly.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 11.02.2026 R.Dang