KHILWAN CHANDRAKAR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:26241-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPPIL No. 37 of 2026
Khilwan Chandrakar Son Of Shri Bhushanlal Chandrakar, Aged About 64
Years Resident Of Azad Chowk Brahmad Para Kurud, District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh, Mobile No. -9425040004
... Petitioner(s)
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary Mantralaya Mahanadi
Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh.
2 - Principal Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise) Department, Government Of
Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur Atal Nagar.
3 - Excise Commissioner, State Excise Department, First Floor, North Block,
Sector -19 Commercial Tax And G.S.T. Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar,
Chhattisgarh -492002
4 - Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters (P.H.Q.) Sector -19, Nava
Raipur, Atal Nagar Chhattisgarh -492002
5 - Economic Offences Wing /Anti -Corruption Bureau, G.E. Road,opposite Jai
jawan Petrol Pump Raipur (C.G.)
6 - Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Department
Revenue, North Block, New Delhi -110001.
7 - Directorate Of Enforcement, Through Zonal Director, Raipur Zonal Office
2nd Floor, Netaji Subhas Stadium, Raipur (C.G.)-492001
... Respondent(s)
{Cause title Taken from Case Information System}
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Palash Tiwari, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General
For Respondent No. 6 : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Deputy Solicitor General
For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar (through Video Conferencing)
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Date:
2026.06.30
11:12:59
+0530
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
and Mr. K.V.Gupta, Advocate.

2
Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
29/06/2026
1. Heard Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard
Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General for the
State/respondent No. 1 to 5, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy
Solicitor General for the Union of India/respondent No. 6 as well as Mr.
B.Gopa Kumar and Mr. K.V.Gupta, Advocates for the respondent No. 7.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
petitioner seeks for the following relief(s):
“10.1. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction directing
Respondent State Authorities to place before this Hon'ble Court
details of all regulatory action initiated under Sections 31 and
34 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 against distillery
operators, license holders, transporters and associated entities
implicated in investigations relating to unlawful liquor circulation
from 2020 onwards;
10.2. Issue appropriate writ/order/direction, directing
constitution of an Independent High-Level Monitoring
Committee/SIT under supervision of this Hon'ble Court to
examine systemic failures, regulatory deficiencies, institutional
accountability and enforcement mechanisms within the State
excise framework;
10.3. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to
establish a real-time digital verification mechanism, including a
centralized and tamper- proof database of transport permits,
accessible to all enforcement agencies, to prevent duplication,
misuse and manipulation of permits;

3
10.4. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to
implement mandatory mapping of permits with specific vehicle
details, quantity of consignment and destination, to ensure
traceability and prevent deviation or misuse during
transportation;
10.5. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to
conduct a State-wide audit of transport permits issued under
the Excise regime to identify instances of duplication, misuse,
irregular issuance and assess consequent loss to the public
exchequer;
10.6. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to
adopt modern technological tools, including QR-code based
permits, GPS tracking of consignments and automated alert
systems, to ensure transparency and traceability in movement
of excisable goods;
10.7. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to
frame and implement guidelines or standard operating
procedures (SOPs) for strict monitoring of transportation of
liquor and prevention of diversion into illegal supply chains;
10.8. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
Order, or Direction, directing Respondent State Authorities to
take effective steps to curb circulation of illicit liquor, including
strengthening enforcement mechanisms and ensuring strict
compliance with statutory provisions;
10.9. Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing the
Respondent State Authorities to undertake immediate scrutiny,
review, suspension and/or cancellation proceedings under
Sections 31 and 34 of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915
against distilleries, manufacturers, bottling units, transporters
and license holders prima facie found involved in unlawful
manufacture, transportation, distribution, storage or sale of illicit

4
and unaccounted country liquor, including entities against
whom charge-sheets, prosecution complaints, attachment
proceedings or judicial observations exist in relation to the
Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam;
10.10.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing
the Respondent State Authorities to place before this Hon'ble
Court the complete particulars of licences granted, renewed or
continued in favour of distillery operators and country liquor
manufacturers against whom proceedings, investigations,
ECIRs, prosecution complaints, supplementary charge- sheets
or attachment proceedings are pending before the EOW/ACB,
Directorate of Enforcement or competent Courts;
10.11.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing
the Respondent State Authorities to conduct a comprehensive
forensic and financial audit of the production, dispatch, bottling,
hologram utilisation, stock accounting and transportation
records of country liquor manufacturers and distilleries
operating in the State during the period 2019 onwards,
including but not limited to entities named in investigations and
judicial proceedings;
10.12.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing
the Respondent Authorities to investigate and fix accountability
of officers of the Excise Department and associated authorities
who failed to invoke statutory powers under Sections 31 and 34
of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 despite availability of
material regarding unlawful manufacture and circulation of
liquor;
10.13.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing
constitution of a Special Investigation Team/Independent
Supervisory Committee to monitor action against distillery
operators and country liquor manufacturers allegedly involved
in illegal supply chains, duplicate hologram operations,
unaccounted liquor circulation and diversion of excise revenue;
10.14.Issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction directing
the Respondent State Authorities to ensure that no renewal,

5
extension, fresh allotment or continuation of excise licences is
granted to any distillery/manufacturer against whom cognizable
offences, prosecution complaints or proceedings under the
Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 are pending in
relation to unlawful liquor operations, without first undertaking a
statutory review under the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915;
10.15.Pass any other appropriate Writ, Order, or Direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, to protect the environment,
public health, and uphold the rule of law .”
3. Mr. Palash Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
present public interest litigation petition has been instituted to address
the alleged systemic failure in the regulatory and enforcement
mechanism governing the liquor trade in the State of Chhattisgarh,
resulting in substantial loss to public revenue, erosion of institutional
accountability, and serious concerns relating to public health and safety.
It is contended that the petitioner, being a journalist and public affairs
commentator, has relied upon material available in the public domain,
including the FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-
Corruption Bureau, proceedings initiated by the Directorate of
Enforcement under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, charge-
sheets filed before the competent Court, and judicial orders passed from
time to time in connected proceedings.
4. Learned counsel submits that the investigation conducted by the
EOW/ACB and the Directorate of Enforcement prima facie discloses the
existence of an organised liquor syndicate involving certain public
servants, private intermediaries, licensed distillery operators and other
entities, which allegedly facilitated the manufacture, transportation and
sale of unaccounted liquor through a parallel distribution mechanism,

6
causing substantial loss to the public exchequer. It is further submitted
that notwithstanding the pendency of such investigations and the filing of
charge-sheets and prosecution complaints alleging offences under the
Indian Penal Code, the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Prevention
of Money Laundering Act, no effective regulatory action has been
initiated by the State authorities against the licence holders and other
entities allegedly involved in the unlawful activities.
5. It is further contended that the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915 casts a
statutory obligation upon the competent authorities to regulate the
manufacture, transport and sale of liquor and empowers them, inter alia,
to suspend or cancel licences and take penal action in cases of violation
of the statutory provisions. According to the petitioner, the continued
inaction of the authorities in invoking the powers conferred under
Sections 31 and 34 of the Act demonstrates a failure to discharge their
statutory duties and has enabled the continuation of unlawful practices
within the excise regime.
6. Learned counsel further submits that the consequences of such
regulatory failure are not confined to financial loss to the State but have
wider ramifications on public health and safety, as the circulation of
unregulated and unaccounted liquor increases the risk of adulterated and
spurious liquor entering the market. Reference has been made to
incidents of illicit liquor tragedies reported in different parts of the country,
as also to international regulatory practices emphasising end-to-end
traceability, technological monitoring and coordinated enforcement
mechanisms. It is, therefore, urged that appropriate directions be issued
to the respondent authorities to enforce the statutory provisions in their
true spirit, take consequential action against persons and entities found

7
involved in the alleged irregularities, and strengthen the regulatory
framework governing the manufacture, transportation and distribution of
liquor in the State so as to ensure transparency, accountability and
protection of public interest.
7. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned counsel for the
State/respondents No. 1 to 5, Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Deputy
Solicitor General for the respondent No. 6/Union of India as well as Mr. B.
Gopa Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that it is
the own say of the petitioner that FIR has been registered against the
delinquent persons including the government officials for the offences in
question and the matters are subjudice before the competent Court of
law and as such, this petition being bereft of merit. The petitioner, by way
of this petition has sought for number of relief(s) which cannot be granted
in any way as the relief sought has to be specific and no blanket order
can be issued in favour of the petitioner.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings
and documents appended thereto.
9. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that despite investigations
conducted by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau and
the Directorate of Enforcement in relation to the alleged liquor scam in the
State, the competent authorities have not initiated adequate regulatory
proceedings under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915
against certain licence holders, distillery operators and other entities. On
that premise, the petitioner seeks a series of directions requiring this
Court to monitor regulatory action, constitute an independent
committee/Special Investigation Team, direct forensic and financial

8
audits, compel implementation of technological reforms in the excise
administration and issue various consequential directions relating to
suspension, cancellation and renewal of licences.
10. It is not in dispute that the allegations forming the basis of the present
petition are already the subject matter of investigation by the competent
investigating agencies. The petitioner himself has relied upon the FIR
registered by the Economic Offences Wing/Anti-Corruption Bureau,
proceedings initiated by the Directorate of Enforcement, prosecution
complaints, charge-sheets and judicial proceedings pending before the
competent Courts. Thus, the criminal law has already been set into
motion and the competent authorities are seized of the matter.
11. The extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is
intended to ensure enforcement of legal and constitutional rights and to
compel performance of statutory duties where a clear failure to discharge
such duties is demonstrated. However, the Court, while exercising the
power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of the executive or
undertake continuous supervision over administrative and regulatory
functions, except in exceptional circumstances where a complete
breakdown of the rule of law or manifest arbitrariness is established.
12. The reliefs sought in the present petition are, in substance, directions
requiring this Court to supervise the functioning of the Excise
Department, monitor investigations, direct initiation of proceedings
against unspecified licence holders, order constitution of an SIT or
monitoring committee, prescribe future policy measures, mandate
introduction of technological mechanisms and frame regulatory protocols
for administration of the excise regime. These are matters which primarily

9
fall within the domain of the Executive and the statutory authorities
entrusted with administration of the Chhattisgarh Excise Act, 1915.
13. A writ of mandamus can be issued only when a specific statutory duty
exists and there is a corresponding demonstrable failure on the part of
the authority to perform such duty. The petitioner has not placed any
material before this Court establishing that despite availability of legally
admissible material against any particular licence holder, the competent
authority has refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under the Act.
Mere reliance upon allegations contained in investigation reports or
prosecution complaints cannot, by itself, justify issuance of a blanket
direction compelling initiation of proceedings under Sections 31 and 34 of
the Act against all entities allegedly involved.
14. Equally untenable is the prayer seeking constitution of an independent
committee or Special Investigation Team under the supervision of this
Court. Such directions are issued only in rare and exceptional situations
where existing investigative mechanisms are shown to have failed or
where the Court is satisfied that investigation by the statutory agencies is
neither fair nor effective. No such exceptional circumstance has been
established in the present case. On the contrary, the material relied upon
by the petitioner itself indicates that investigations have been conducted
by competent agencies and criminal proceedings are pending before the
jurisdictional Courts.
15. Likewise, the prayers seeking introduction of QR code-based permits,
GPS tracking, digital verification systems, transport audit mechanisms,
formulation of standard operating procedures and other administrative
reforms are essentially matters of governmental policy. It is well settled
that policy choices relating to administration and regulation ordinarily fall

10
within the executive domain and are not amenable to judicial directions
unless found to be arbitrary, unconstitutional or contrary to any statutory
mandate. No such case has been made out.
16. We are also of the considered opinion that most of the reliefs sought are
omnibus and general in nature. The petitioner seeks broad directions
affecting an entire regulatory framework without identifying any specific
decision or omission which is amenable to judicial review. Such blanket
directions cannot be issued in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
17. We also find that the petitioner has failed to establish any sufficient locus
to maintain the present public interest litigation. The petitioner claims to
be a journalist and public affairs commentator and has founded the
present petition entirely on material already available in the public
domain, including FIRs, charge-sheets, prosecution complaints and
judicial proceedings. It is not the petitioner's case that he is an aggrieved
person or that any legal injury has been caused to him personally. More
importantly, the very material relied upon by the petitioner demonstrates
that the competent investigating agencies have already registered
criminal cases, conducted investigations, filed charge-sheets and set the
criminal law in motion against the alleged delinquent persons. Once the
statutory authorities have already initiated proceedings against the
persons concerned, it is difficult to appreciate the petitioner's insistence
on seeking further omnibus directions from this Court. In the absence of
any material to show deliberate inaction, mala fides or failure of the
authorities to discharge their statutory obligations, the present petition
appears to be an attempt to secure judicial monitoring of matters already
being dealt with by the competent authorities, which is impermissible in
exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

11
18. It is the duty of this Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private
motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the
purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and
bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for
extraneous considerations.
19. The Courts should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioner
before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before
entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of
genuine public harm or public injury. The Court should also ensure that
there is no personal gain, private motive or oblique motive behind filing
the public interest litigation. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in
public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have
bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any
extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can
become a source of misuse by private persons seeking to pursue their
own vested interests.
20. The Courts cannot allow its process to be abused for oblique purposes,
as was observed by the Supreme Court Court in Ashok Kumar Pandey
v. State of West Bengal , {(2004) 3 SCC 349}. In State of Uttaranchal
Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal & Others , {2010 AIR SCW 1029}, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court had discussed the three stages of a PIL which
has been discussed above. The Supreme Court, in Balwant Singh
Chaufal (supra) states as to how this important jurisdiction, i.e., PIL has
been abused at Para 143 by observing as under:
“143. Unfortunately, of late, it has been noticed that such
an important jurisdiction which has been carefully carved
out, created and nurtured with great care and caution by
the courts, is being blatantly abused by filing some
petitions with oblique motives. We think time has come
when genuine and bona fide public interest litigation must

12
be encouraged whereas frivolous public interest litigation
should be discouraged. In our considered opinion, we
have to protect and preserve this important jurisdiction in
the larger interest of the people of this country but we
must take effective steps to prevent and cure its abuse
on the basis of monetary and non-monetary directions by
the courts.”
21. The Supreme Court, in Holicow Pictures (P) Ltd. v. Prem Chand
Mishra , reported in (2007) 14 SCC 281 which has relied Janata Dal v.
H.S. Chowdhary , reported in (1992) 4 SCC 305, observed as under:
“12. It is depressing to note that on account of such
trumpery proceedings initiated before the courts,
innumerable days are wasted, which time otherwise
could have been spent for the disposal of cases of the
genuine litigants. Though we spare no efforts in fostering
and developing the laudable concept of PIL and
extending our long arm of sympathy to the poor, the
ignorant, the oppressed and the needy whose
fundamental rights are infringed and violated and whose
grievances go unnoticed, unrepresented and unheard;
yet we cannot avoid but express our opinion that while
genuine litigants with legitimate grievances relating to
civil matters involving properties worth hundreds of
millions of rupees and criminal cases in which persons
sentenced to death facing gallows under untold agony
and persons sentenced to life imprisonment and kept in
incarceration for long years, persons suffering from undue
delay in service matters—government or private, persons
awaiting the disposal of cases wherein huge amounts of
public revenue or unauthorised collection of tax amounts
are locked up, detenu expecting their release from the
detention orders, etc. etc. are all standing in a long
serpentine queue for years with the fond hope of getting
into the courts and having their grievances redressed, the
busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or
officious interveners having absolutely no public interest
except for personal gain or private profit either of
themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other
extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, break the
queue muffing their faces by wearing the mask of public
interest litigation and get into the courts by filing
vexatious and frivolous petitions and thus criminally
waste the valuable time of the courts and as a result of
which the queue standing outside the doors of the courts
never moves, which piquant situation creates frustration
in the minds of the genuine litigants and resultantly they
lose faith in the administration of our judicial system.”
22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Gurpal Singh v. State of Punjab &
Others reported in (2005) 5 SCC 136, the appointment of the appellant

13
as Auction Recorder was challenged. The Court held that the scope of
entertaining a petition styled as a public interest litigation and l ocus
standi of the petitioner particularly in matters involving service of an
employee has been examined by this Court in various cases. The Court
observed that before entertaining the petition, the Court must be satisfied
about (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness
or nature of information given by him; (c) the information being not vague
and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness
involved. The court has to strike balance between two conflicting
interests; (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless
allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of
public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions seeking to assail, for
oblique motives, justifiable executive actions.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no ground to exercise our
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is
hereby dismissed .
24. The security amount deposited by the petitioner also stands forfeited.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Brijmohan / Amit