Vivek Shah vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2823 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Vivek Shah vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 April, 2026

Author: Pankaj Purohit

Bench: Pankaj Purohit

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures



                                  WPMS No.862 of 2026
                                  Vivek Shah                                                  ............Petitioner
                                                            Vs.
                                  State of Uttarakhand and others                            ..........Respondents

                                  Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Chetan Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State.

3. Mr. Shivanand Bhatt, learned counsel, has put in his appearance on behalf of respondent no.5 who prays for and is granted one week's time to file his vakalatanama in the matter.

4. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.03.2026, passed by respondent no.2-Excise Commissioner in Appeal No./ukS-fof/k-546-vihy(t; izdk"k)-e0nq0-Fkjkyh/2025-26, annexure no.1 to the writ petition, whereby the operation to the shop of the petitioner at Village- Lolti, Tehsil-Tharali, District-Chamoli, has been stopped.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was allotted a foreign liquor sub shop at Village- Lolti, Tehsil-Tharali, District-Chamoli vide order dated 25.03.2026 for Financial Year 2026-27 and 2027-28.

6. Allegedly an appeal has been filed by respondent no.5 before the Excise Commissioner of Uttarakhand purportedly under Section 11(1) of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1910"), and the order impugned has been passed thereon without hearing the petitioner.

7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 11(1) of the Act of 1910 an appeal would lie only against an order and in this case the impugned order itself nowhere reflects that against which order the appeal has been filed.

8. Even the learned counsel for the respondent no.5 could not point out any order by which he is aggrieved and the appeal has been filed.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that against the order passed in Appellate Jurisdiction a revision would lie under Section 11(2) of the Act of 1910.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record this Court finds favour with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal would lie only against the order by which the petitioner would be aggrieved, but in the case in hand no such order is reflected from this impugned order and the same is also not brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

11. In such view of the matter, the Court is inclined to interfere in the matter.

12. List this case on 16.06.2026.

13. Learned counsel for the respondent(s) may file counter affidavit(s) within four weeks.

14. In the meantime, order dated 31.03.2026, passed by respondent no.2-Excise Commissioner in Appeal No./ukS-fof/k- 546-vihy(t; izdk"k)-e0nq0-Fkjkyh/2025-26, is hereby stayed.

15. Interim Relief Application (IA No.1 of 2026) stands disposed of accordingly.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) 08.04.2026 SK