Dismissed¶9

Manoj Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC1 Sept 2025WPMS/2539/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Uttarakhand High Court writ petitions WPMS No. 2539 of 2025 and WPMS No. 2540 of 2025 (common judgment, Manoj Kumar Tiwari J, 01.09.2025; 2025:UHC:7739) concerning suspension of a country-made liquor retail licence by the District Excise Officer vide order dated 19.08.2025; petitioner argued District Magistrate alone competent and suspension permissible only under Section 34 of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910; suspension revoked by District Excise Officer, Nainital vide order dated 27.08.2025 during pendency; petitions dismissed as infructuous; no ruling on merits; no precedent cited; no monetary relief.

What did the court decide?

In view of the development during pendency of the writ petition (revocation of the suspension order), the relief claimed in the writ petition does not survive. ¶8

Manoj Singh Bisht Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2025:UHC:7739

¶2

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

¶3

2025:UHC:7739

¶4

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 SINGH ASWAL 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, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.09.01 05:15:15 -07'00'

¶5

2025:UHC:7739

Manoj Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Singh Bisht v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Reeta Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sandeep Goyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Abhishek Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand

Naseem Ahmad Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shamsheeda Bano Vs State of Uttarakhand

Devendra Singh Mehra Vs State of Uttarakhand