[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench
Chanchala vs Union Territory Of J And on 9 February, 2026
Serial No. 1
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(375/2026) IN WP(C) 1406/2025
CHANCHALA ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
SHARMA(SENIOR CITIZEN)
Through: None
Vs.
UNION TERRITORY OF J AND ...Respondent(s).
K AND ORS.
Through: Mr. Hakim Aman Ali, Dy. AG for Rs. 3 and 4
Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Farooq Ah. Khan, Adv.
Mr. Sajid Ahmad, Adv. for Pvt. R. No. 5
None for Respondents 1 and 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
09.02.2026
1. There is no representation in the matter on behalf of
the petitioner. The previous order dated 30.12.2025
inadvertently reflects the name of Mr. M. Y. Bhat,
learned Senior Advocate, with Ms. Urba Naseer,
Advocate, as counsel for the petitioner, whereas, in fact,
the said learned counsel represents the private
respondent No. 5.
2. The subject matter of the dispute pertains to Shop No. 1
situated in Hotel Heemal Boulevard, Srinagar, owned by
the J&K Tourist Development Corporation. It is the case
of the petitioner that pursuant to an open auction
conducted for the grant of a temporary licence for sale of
liquor, she emerged as the highest bidder, whereupon a
temporary licence was issued in her favour for the
location SMC-A, Srinagar, valid for the year 2024-2025.
It is further stated that she was subsequently granted a
licence for the said location for the year 2025-2026 as
well. It is admitted by the petitioner, as per the
averments made in the petition, that she obtained the
disputed shop, i.e., Shop No. 1 at Hotel Heemal
Boulevard Road, Srinagar, from private respondent No.
5, who was the duly licensed holder thereof, for the
purpose of operating her aforesaid liquor licence. The
petitioner further asserts that while she was operating
her liquor licence in the said shop, she started facing
interference from the official respondents with effect from
the first week of April, 2025, on one pretext or another. It
is alleged that although no plausible reason was
assigned for such interference, it later transpired that the
official respondents had revoked the licence in respect of
the suit shop premises vide order dated 02.04.2025. The
said revocation order was thereafter challenged by the
licensee, i.e., respondent No. 5, before the appropriate
forum by way of arbitration proceedings.
3. The private respondent No. 5, who is admittedly the
licensee in respect of the suit shop premises was not
initially arrayed as a party to the petition. He came to be
impleaded subsequently pursuant to his application
bearing CM No. 7206/2025. The newly impleaded
respondent No. 5 has contested the claim of the
petitioner by asserting that he himself was operating the
suit shop by using the liquor licence of the petitioner. On
the other hand, it is the case of the petitioner that she,
being a duly licensed holder for possession and sale of
liquor, had obtained possession of the suit shop from
respondent No. 5 on a rental basis, pursuant to an
agreement executed between the parties on 07.08.2024.
4. Subsequent to the revocation of the licence earlier
granted in favour of private respondent No. 5, the official
respondents sealed the suit shop, which evidently
constrained the petitioner to approach this Court by way
of the instant writ petition. The private respondent No. 5
now contends that the petitioner has no subsisting right
whatsoever in respect of the suit shop, inasmuch as the
rent agreement dated 07.08.2024 was valid only for a
period of nine months, i.e., from 08.08.2024 to
07.05.2025, and has since expired without any renewal
or extension.
5. The private respondent No. 5 subsequent to the
revocation of his license on 02.04.2025 by the official
respondents also approaches to the court of learned
District Judge concerned by filing an application under
Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking interim relief,
which came to be declined. Aggrieved thereof, he
challenged the said order dated 04.06.2025 of the Court
of learned Additional District Judge, Srinagar, by way of
an appeal, wherein an order of status quo in respect of
the suit shop was passed vide order dated 18.06.2025.
Similarly, an order of status quo in respect of the subject
matter was also passed by this Court on 18.06.2025 in
the present petition filed by the petitioner.
6. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for
private respondent No. 5, Mr. M. Y. Bhat, Senior
Advocate, in open Court that in view of the arbitration
clause contained in the lease agreement between
respondent No. 5 and the official respondents, he had
initiated proceedings for appointment of an arbitrator
under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
It is further submitted that the arbitration proceedings
culminated in an award passed in his favour, wherein
the learned Arbitrator, vide award dated 22.01.2026,
held that the revocation order dated 02.04.2025 was
illegal, invalid, and non-est in the eyes of law, and
accordingly, set aside the same. That as a consequence
thereof, the allotment order whereby the suit shop, i.e.,
Shop No. 1 situated at Hotel Heemal Boulevard Road,
Srinagar, which had been allotted in favour of the
claimant/respondent No. 5 (PAN No. ALCPD1408L) on a
rent basis in the year 2017, stood restored, along with
his possession as a licensee in respect of the said shop
till June, 2027, in terms of the arbitration award.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for
respondent No. 5 that the present petitioner had
approached the learned Arbitral Tribunal seeking her
impleadment in the arbitration proceedings, however,
the said application was dismissed by the learned
Tribunal vide order dated 28.01.2026 on the ground
that the arbitral award had already been passed.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for
official respondents No. 3 and 4, Mr. Hakim Aman Ali,
learned Deputy Advocate General, that the arbitral
award dated 22.01.2026 is proposed to be challenged by
the respondents, i.e., the J&K Tourism Development
Corporation, by initiating appropriate proceedings before
the competent court of law.
9. It is very needful to mention that the petitioner
has filed a miscellaneous application bearing CM No.
7616/2025 in the instant matter i.e., WP(C) No.
1406/2025 with the prayer that the official
respondents 3 and 4 be directed to allow her to
remove the liquor stock from the sealed shop. It is,
inter alia, mentioned in the said application at its
para 6 that she is no more interested to run and
operate the shop and will wait for its turn to obtain
on lease the same as and when put on tenders and
she presently wants to remove the items from the
shop as the same are perishable in the nature being
at the verge of expiry.
10. In the backdrop of the afore mentioned discussion,
the instant petition appears to have been rendered
infructuous and stands accordingly, disposed of.
11. With regard to the liquor stock stated to be lying in
the sealed shop, i.e., Shop No. 1 situated at Hotel
Heemal Boulevard Road, Srinagar, the petitioner is
permitted to approach official respondents No. 1 and
2, i.e., the Excise Department, Government of J&K, for
removing the liquor stock from the said shop and for
dealing with the same strictly in accordance with law
and the rules governing the field. The official
respondents 3 and 4 i.e., J&K Tourism Development
Corporation, Srinagar, as also the private respondent
No. 5 shall cooperate with the petitioner and the
official respondents 1 and 2 to the extent of removal of
the stock from the said shop so that same is dealt with
in accordance with law.
12. It is clarified that the order passed hereinabove is
limited to the scope of the present petition, i.e., WP(C)
No. 1406/2025, and shall not prejudice the rights of
the parties in respect of any future development
relating to Shop No. 1 situated at Hotel Heemal
Boulevard, Srinagar. The law shall take its own course
in that regard.
13. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant
that in view of the arbitral award dated 22.01.2026
having been passed in favour of the appellant, he does
not intend to pursue the instant appeal, which has,
accordingly, been rendered infructuous. The appeal,
therefore, also stands disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
09.02.2026
Sakeena-PS
