[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
23 March vs State Of Uttarakhand Through ... on 23 March, 2026
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
2026:UHC:2028
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1073 of 2018
23 March, 2026
Rajendra Prasad Chamoli
--Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand Through Additional Chief Secretary
& others
--Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
By means of the present writ petition, the
petitioner has sought a direction to respondent no. 1 to
adjust the amount of money recovered by running or
operating the country-made liquor shop, Doiwala, District
Dehradun, on daily basis w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to
15.06.2017, in total yearly revenue to be paid by the
petitioner with regard to the country-made liquor shop,
Doiwala.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Excise
Policy was issued by the respondent-State on 19.05.2017,
wherein the shops were settled to different licensees. The
shops of the licensees were to be settled w.e.f. 01.06.2017
to 30.03.2018. The shop was operative on daily basis
w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to 28.06.2017, and it is only on
29.06.2017 that the shop was allotted/offered to the
petitioner, and it is only on 29.06.2017 that the shop was
started and run by the petitioner. The shop in-question
was allotted to the petitioner on an annual revenue of Rs.
6 crores 70 lakhs only. The petitioner has deposited the
2026:UHC:2028
aforesaid amount with the State Government through the
concerned authorities. The petitioner only wanted to
adjust the revenue earned w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to
28.06.2017, which was earned by the petitioner on the
basis of operation on daily basis. The said prayer was
granted by the respondent-department in part only for
the period of 16.06.2017 to 28.06.2017 while, the prayer
for adjusting the amount w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to 15.06.2017
was not granted. Aggrieved by the said inaction on the
part of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner is before
this Court with the prayer to adjust the amount earned
by the shop on daily basis w.e.f. 01.06.2017 to
15.06.2017.
3. Though a counter affidavit has been filed by
the State, in which it has been stated that since the
advertisement was issued only on 10.06.2017 w.e.f.
15.06.2017, therefore, the period subsequent to the
advertisement was adjusted, while the period before the
advertisement was left unsettled.
4. The petitioner has moved a representation
dated 19.03.2018, annexure-4 to the writ petition, to
respondent no. 3-District Excise Officer, Dehradun, but
respondent no. 3 has taken no decision on the said
representation.
5. Since the writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for a writ of mandamus, therefore, this Court is
of the view that justice would be met if respondent no. 3
is directed to take a conscious decision on the
representation dated 19.03.2018, annexure-4 to the writ
petition, within the stipulated period fixed by this Court.
6. In such a view of the matter, the writ petition is
disposed of finally, and it is provided that respondent no.
3-District Excise Officer, Dehradun shall take a decision
2026:UHC:2028
on the representation dated 19.03.2018, annexure-4 to
the writ petition, within a period of eight weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Needless to say that the representation should be decided
by respondent no. 3-District Excise Officer, Dehradun,
strictly in accordance with law, by a speaking order, after
providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
7. Pending application, if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
23.03.2026
AK
