HARISH SINGH vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court
Uttarakhand High Court


2026:UHC:4221

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 882 of 2025

27 May, 2026

Harish Singh --Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and others
--Respondents


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Suyash Pant, learned S.C. for the State.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
In view of the reasons stated, Delay
Condonation Application (IA/2/2025) is allowed. Delay
in filing the counter affidavit is condoned. Counter
affidavit filed by respondent no.4 is taken on record.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits
that petitioner’s father participated in the lottery process
for allotment of ‘Indian made Foreign Liquor Shop’
Roorkee, District Haridwar for the Financial Year 2020-
2021. Petitioner’s father was declared successful in the
lottery process and he was asked to complete certain
formalities, as required, but his father did not accept the
lottery and he even did not complete the formality of
depositing licence fee. Consequently, Earnest Money
Deposit (EMD) of Rs.11.25 lakh deposited by petitioner’s
father was forfeited. Subsequently, the shop was allotted
to a third person and the loss of revenue was sought to
be recovered from the petitioner’s father. The order to
this effect was passed on 16.07.2020 by the District
Magistrate, Haridwar. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner’s
father preferred an appeal under Section 11(1) of the
1


2026:UHC:4221
Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 ( to be referred to as the
‘Act’ ) before the Excise Commissioner, Uttarakhand who
too dismissed the appeal vide order dated 06.08.2024.
Thereafter, father of petitioner died on 18.09.2024 and
petitioner stepped into his shoes. Subsequent thereto,
petitioner challenged both the orders in revision preferred
under Section 11(2) of the Act. The revision was also
dismissed vide order dated 19.02.2025 by the Revisional
Authority. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner is before this
Court challenging all the aforesaid orders.
3. It is contended by learned Counsel for
petitioner that the offer of State was not accepted by the
petitioner’s father and he did not complete the requisite
formality to constitute a contract between him and the
State. Therefore, the order of recovering the loss of
revenue from petitioner’s father is bad in law and cannot
sustain. He further submits that loss of difference can
only be recovered from petitioner’s father if he became a
licensee of the State and not from a person who is mere
an allottee. It is also submitted that the Earnest Money
Deposit (EMD) amounting to Rs.11.25 lakh was already
forfeited for not completing formalities by petitioner’s
father and petitioner has also been blacklisted for future.
4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the State vehemently argued that the
action of respondent-State is right in recovering the dues
of loss of revenue from petitioner. Apart from the
averments made in the counter affidavit, it is the
submission of learned State Counsel that as per the
‘Explanation’ to Section 36 of the Act, petitioner is a
holder of licence. He also relied upon the Rule 18 of
Uttaranchal Excise (Settlement of Licenses for Retail Sale
of Foreign Liquor and Beer) Rules, 2001.
2


2026:UHC:4221
5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties
and perused the record.
6. For ready reference, the ‘explanation’ appended
to Section 36 of the Act is quoted below: -
“36. Surrender of licence to sell by retail - …………
Provided that…………..
Explanation- The words ‘holder of a licence’ as
used in this section includes a person whose tender
or bid for a licence has been accepted although he
may not actually have received the licence.’
7. From a perusal of aforesaid explanation, it is
reflected that the said explanation speaks about the
‘holder of licence’. The petitioner cannot be termed to be
holder of licence in view of the fact that he has not
completed the formalities. Mere being successful bidder
in the lottery process cannot make him holder of licence.
He could become a licensee only when he completed the
requisite formalities and after depositing the licence fees,
and finally when the licence is issued in his favor. In the
case in hand, nothing like that has happened. Therefore,
the explanation appended to Section 36 of the Act is not
attracted in this case.
8. The next submission made by learned State
Counsel is regarding Rule 18 of the Rules of 2001. For
the sake of convenience, Rule 18 is also quoted below: -
18- - A licensee may surrender
Surrender of licence
his licence after giving at least one months notice in
writing to the licensing authority under provisions of
section - 36 of the Act. On receipt of such application
the licensing authority will take steps for recovering
all outstanding excise dues from his security deposit.
The licensing authorty shall also proceed for
resettlement of the shop without delay for the
3


2026:UHC:4221
remaining period of the excise year. Any shortfall in
government revenue shall be recoverable from the
outgoing licensee as arrears of land revenue.
9. So far as Rule 18 is concerned, the same is
attracted where a person has been given a licence and
subsequently, he surrenders the licence which causes
loss in getting allotment to a new person. However, it is
not so in the present case.
10. In such view of the matter, both the arguments
advanced by learned State Counsel are bereft of merit
and the same are rejected. It can safely be observed that
mere selection in the lottery process under law is an
offer, and until and unless it is accepted, the contract is
not executed between the parties. It is further clarified
that for not completing the requisite formalities resulted
into forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.11.25
lakhs made the petitioner and declaring him blacklisted.
11. In view of the above, the writ petition is
allowed. The orders dated 16.07.2020, 06.08.2024 and
19.02.2025, impugned in this writ petition, are hereby
set aside.
12. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.



( Pankaj Purohit, J .)
27.05.2026
R.Dang






4