Saurabh Singh Chauhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

“10.1 Issue an appropriate writ in nature of Mandamus and quash the order dated 07.11.2025 (Annexure P/1) as also the sealing of shop consequently vide photo dated 22.11.2025 (Annexure P/2) for the same being absolutely misconceived in law and arbitrary.

¶25

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to operate the ‘premises’ associated with the IMFL shop concerned, allotted to him after a due tender process without any hurdle.

¶26

10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

¶27

3.Subject matter is in brief is that the petitioner has been allotted with a 'premise' associated with the IMFL shop concerned after a due tender process. The petitioner while operating the 'premises' by remaining within the terms of license to operate the same has been issued with order dated 07.11.2025 whereby under reference of the Clause 22.4 of the Instructions dated 28.03.2025 issued by the respondents prescribing guidelines for the allotment of premises and various other matters connected therewith he has been asked to shift the 'premises' at a different location. Such an order is absolutely wrong and arbitrary for the reason of the precondition of asking to shift the 'premises' having not been fulfilled there at all. Order dated 14.11.2025 shifting the IMFL shop, i.e. the indispensable precondition for shifting of the premises having passed after a week of the order shifting the

¶28

3

¶29

premises the present case turns out to be one of rounding the clock otherwise, which may not have any acceptance in law. The IMFL shop concerned is still in operation even after passing of the order dated 14.11.2025, whereas the premises' has been sealed on 22.11.2025.

¶30

4.Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop after a due tender process is absolutely harsh, irrational and without legal authority and as such calls for interference of this Court. He would further submit that the order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop under reference of the Clause 22.4 of the instructions dated 28.03.2025 is per se misconceived and illogical for the foremost condition of application of such clause of shifting of the IMFL shop having not fulfilled and thus needs immediate interference of this Hon'ble Court for protection of his fundamental right to business as enshrined under Articles 14 r/w. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop is per se bad from the fact that even for record's sake the order of shifting of the IMFL shop has been passed on 14.11.2025 only, i.e. after lapse of seven days from passing of the order impugned dated 07.11.2025, which means that on the date of impugned order the

¶31

4

¶32

IMFL shop remained functioning even on official records and therefore there had been no basis available to the respondents to pass such order. The order impugned dated 07.11.2025 and the one dated asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop and then sealing the premises is per se bad since the IMFL shop is still remaining operational very well even as on date, even after passing of the order dated 14.11.2025 records, displaying an unworthy, untoward and brazen exercise of authority on part of the respondents warranting immediate intervention of this Court. In view of the above the respondents deserve to be commanded forthwith for opening of the seal of the premises permitting the petitioner to operate the premises which is allotted to him by following a due process of law, as explained above.

¶33

5.Learned counsel for the State-Respondent would submit that the Additional Commissioner of Excise Department vide letter dated 28.06.2022, had wrote a letter to the Collector with regard to the transfer of foreign liquor shop and conversion/upgradation of the country made liquor shop, to C.S-2 (composite) liquor shop as well as it was proposed that the foreign liquor shop Ambagarh Chowki would be transfer to Gram Panchayat Khadgaon and to upgrade the country made liquor shop Ambagarh Chowki. The District Excise Officer had to put the matter before Excise Commissioner Chhattisgarh, Raipur for the consideration of the transfer of Foreign liquor shop from Ambagarh Chowki to Gram

¶34

5

¶35

Panchayat Khadgaon. Vide order dated 14.11.2025, District Excise Officer had passed an order for shifting of foreign liquor shop, Ambagarh Chowki from Government building Pangri road, Ambagarh Chowki to Gram Panchayat-Khadgaon. In compliance of the order of 14.11.2025, foreign liquor shop has already been shifted to Gram Panchayat, Khadgaon. He would further submit that the petitioner vide letter dated 07.11.2025 and 21.11.2025 was intimated by District Excise Officer for shifting of Ahata to Gram Panchayat Khadgaon, along with foreign liquor shop to Khadgaon as per Clause 22.4, 22.5 and 22.6 which is Annexure P/4 in the present petition.

¶36

6.We have learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ petition.

¶37

7.It is undisputed that the the petitioner was allotted with the premises associated with the IMFL Shop, Ambbagarh Chowki, District Mohla Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki (C.G.) for the period from 08.07.2025 to 31.03.2026 vide order dated 30.06.2025 with issuance of a license of even date.

¶38

8.Clause 22.4 of the instruction dated 28.03.2025 is reproduced as under :

¶39

“(22.4) ��रणवशय��म��र��न��उ�� प�र� म�अथव�अ�यप�र� म�अथव�ए��म��र� ��न�� र��म�!�न�"त�रत��य��त�$% त�म��र� ��न��!�न�"तरण��&!�तम��"�'नअ$�त� / अ$�त( �� म)$ ��*�!�न�"तरण��य��न�अ�नव�य+ $�,�।इ��"/"धम� अन1234तध��र��नव�न!�परअ$�त�/अ$�त( ��म)$ �"/"ध� �म5त6व!�5वय" ��6यपर�रन�$�,�।ऐ��&!�तम� अन1234तध�र��8��र��तप)9त: श��न;�र��यन$<

¶40

6

¶41

$�,�।"

¶42

9.The order impugned dated 07.11.2025 asking the petitioner to shift the originally allotted premises associated with the IMFL shop. Even for record's sake the order of shifting of the IMFL shop has been passed on 14.11.2025 only, i.e. after lapse of seven days from passing of the order impugned dated 07.11.2025, which means that on the date of impugned order the IMFL shop remained functioning even on official records and therefore there had been no basis available to the respondents to pass such order.

¶43

Upon due consideration of the pleadings and submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the impugned order dated 07.11.2025, directing the petitioner to shift the shop from the premises originally allotted pursuant to a duly conducted tender process, is arbitrary, irrational and unsupported by any valid statutory or factual basis.

¶44

The record reveals that the formal order for shifting of the IMFL shop was issued only on 14.11.2025, whereas the impugned order is dated 07.11.2025. Consequently, on the date of the impugned order, the IMFL shop continued to remain operational even in official records, rendering the impugned action wholly premature and unsustainable in law. The subsequent sealing of the premises, despite the shop remaining operational, further reflects an arbitrary and excessive exercise of power by the respondents.

¶45

7

¶46

This Court further finds that the respondents have wrongly invoked Clause 22.4 of the instructions dated 28.03.2025, as the mandatory pre-conditions for application of the said clause were admittedly not in existence on the date of passing of the impugned order. The action of the respondents is ex facie illegal.

¶47

Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed . The impugned order dated 07.11.2025, as well as all consequential actions including the sealing of the premises, are quashed. The respondents are directed to forthwith remove the seal and permit the petitioner to operate the shop from the premises originally allotted to him as per rules.

¶48

Consequently, the present petition is allowed and disposed off.

¶49

Sd/Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶50

Vasant

Saurabh Singh Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saurabh Singh Chauhan v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Tikendra Sahu @ Tikesh @ Tinku

Ranu Shukla Das @ Sandeep Das Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Aasha Chandrakar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pranesh Golcha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Yadav @ Dhanraj Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh