WPMS/2539/2025
2025 Latest Caselaw 4019 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2539/2025 on 1 September, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                   2025:UHC:7739
              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
             and Registrar's
               order with
               Signatures
                               WPMS No. 2539 of 2025
                               With
                               WPMS No. 2540 of 2025
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
                               1.

Mr. Rahul Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Since common questions of fact and law are involved in these petitions, therefore, both these petitions are clubbed together and decided by this common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity and convenience, facts of WPMS No. 2539 of 2025 alone are being considered.

4. Petitioner is a licencee for retail sale of Country Made Liquor. His licence to sell Country Made Liquor was suspended vide order dated 19.08.2025 passed by District Excise Officer. Challenging the suspension order, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that District Excise Officer is not competent to pass the order of suspension, as District Magistrate alone is competent for the purpose. He further submitted that a licence can be suspended only on the ground indicated in Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 and none of the ground mentioned in the inspection report is referable to Section 34 of the Act.

6. In the pre-lunch session, State 2025:UHC:7739

Counsel was asked to get instructions in the matter. The matter was again taken up in post-lunch session and State Counsel has produced in Court order dated 27.08.2025 issued by District Excise Officer, Nainital.

7. Perusal of the said order reveals that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner has been revoked.

8. In view of the development, which has taken place during pendency of the writ petition, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, does not survive.

9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed, as infructuous.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 01.09.2025 Aswal

NITI RAJ Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

SINGH ASWAL serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A585 31726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.01 05:15:15 -07'00' 2025:UHC:7739