Writ petition challenging suspension of liquor license dismissed as infructuous after the impugned suspension order was revoked during the pendency of the petition.
none granted as the original suit is now infructuous
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
2025:UHC:7739
| 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 |
2025:UHC:7739
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 Perusal of the said order reveals that the order of suspension passed against the petitioner has been revoked. 8.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'
2025:UHC:7739
Licencee for retail sale of Country Made Liquor
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
