In an appeal filed by the State of U.P. before the Supreme Court against an order dated 24-03-2026 by the Allahabad High Court whereby the Licensing Authority’s order cancelling the respondent’s country liquor license for the excise year 2018-19, forfeiting the basic license fee, security deposit, as well as the orders of the appellate and revisional authority affirming the same had been quashed and set aside, a Bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Radhe set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the High Court to be decided afresh.
On 19-03-2018, the respondent was allotted a country liquor shop in Varanasi, after which he deposited a basic license fee of Rs. 20,08,608/- and a security deposit of Rs. 15,92,540/-. He also executed a rent agreement for a shop in the same area. In a survey by the Excise Department on 12-06-2018, it was found that the respondent was running a shop in another location leading to the issuance of a notice dated 19-07-2018 stating that the respondent was running a country liquor shop at a location other than the one allotted and directed the production of layout of shop.
On 23-07-2018, the respondent submitted a reply to the notice and on 29-12-2020, the Licensing Authority directed cancellation of the respondent’s license, forfeiting the basic license fee and security deposit. The appellate authority and the revisional authority affirmed the said order. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition before the High Court and the Single Judge quashed the previous orders while directing the present appellant to refund the basic license fee and security amount to the respondent within 3 months.
The appellant submitted that the impugned order was cryptic, passed without assigning any reason, and that the High Court ought to have appreciated that the State was entitled to retain the amount of Rs. 9,46,941/- that was loss on account of the Minimum Guaranteed Quota (MGQ).
The Court found that the High Court’s order was cryptic and suffered from the vice of non-application of mind as the issues that arose out of the pleadings had not been adverted to by the High Court. Thus, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the High Court for deciding the petition afresh. Considering that the matter had been pending since long, the Court requested the High Court to dispose of the same expeditiously.
