Recently, the Supreme Court overturned the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s interim order that had restrained the implementation of liquor vend allotment under the Excise Policy 2025-26. The Court observed that the High Court failed to provide any reasoning for granting the stay and emphasized that interim relief must be backed by a prima facie case and recorded satisfaction.
The case arose from writ petitions challenging the allotment of liquor vends under the Excise Policy 2025-26 in Punjab. The High Court, in an interim order, directed all parties to maintain the status quo regarding liquor vends until the next hearing.
As a result, 97 liquor vendors, allotted through an e-auction process, remained non-operational from April 1, 2025. This effectively halted the execution of the Excise Policy, leading to financial and administrative concerns for the state and the allottees.
The appellants, including the administration and the allottees, contended that the High Court’s interim order lacked reasoning and had caused unnecessary disruption in the execution of a duly approved excise policy. It was argued that the order effectively stalled a significant revenue-generating process without any justification. Whereas, the petitioners sought to challenge the fairness and legality of the allotment process, alleging irregularities in its execution. They argued that the policy implementation required judicial scrutiny before allowing the vends to become operational.
The Apex Court criticized the High Court for failing to record any satisfaction or reasoning behind granting the interim stay. It stated, "If indeed the High Court had found a prima facie case for granting interim relief, along with the balance of convenience and potential irreparable loss, it should have at least recorded some reason(s), howsoever brief, evincing the application of mind to the contentions urged by the writ petitioners. Unfortunately, the High Court has recorded no such satisfaction."
The Court emphasized that while granting interim relief, a judicial authority must provide proper justification. It further clarified that any further interim relief must be granted only after due application of mind and must be supported by cogent reasoning.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order restraining the implementation of liquor vends allotment, directing the High Court to proceed with the matter expeditiously. It instructed that pleadings be completed within two weeks and that any further interim relief, if necessary, be granted only with proper reasoning.
Picture Source :
