A previously operational liquor vend cannot be relocated on selective objections without uniform, objective scrutiny.

The petitions concerned the operation of a retail liquor vend (JKEL-2) at JMC Ward No. 20-D, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu.

The vend operated from premises belonging to Jai Dev Kaalra during the financial years 2024–2025 and 2025–2026.

For 2025–2026, Sanchit Mahajan was declared the successful bidder and was granted a temporary licence.

During the pendency of those challenges, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu, communicated to the Excise Commissioner on 28 January 2026 that, although the vend could operate until the end of the 2025–2026 financial year, the premises should not be used for the vend thereafter because of residents’ complaints and the alleged commercial use of residential premises.

For the financial year 2026–2027, Pritam Singh emerged as the H-1 bidder for the same notified location.

The Excise Department, relying on the Deputy Commissioner’s communication, advised him to identify alternative premises.

When he failed to do so, proceedings were initiated proposing cancellation of his bid and forfeiture of his earnest money.

1. Whether the Deputy Commissioner could prevent the successful H-1 bidder from operating the liquor vend from premises where the vend had operated during the preceding financial years, merely on the basis of residents’ objections and the alleged residential character of the locality?

2. Whether a fresh No Objection Certificate or clearance from the District Magistrate was required under Clause 2.3.8 of the applicable Excise Policy when the vend had already operated from the same premises during the preceding financial year?

3. Whether the authorities were required to consider residents’ objections objectively and apply the statutory and policy framework uniformly to all similarly situated liquor establishments in the locality?

4. Whether the show-cause notice proposing cancellation of Pritam Singh’s bid and forfeiture of his earnest money could be sustained when his failure to operationalise the vend resulted from the authorities’ own direction preventing use of the auctioned premises?

5. Whether the challenges in WP(C) Nos. 735/2025, 1106/2025 and 757/2026 against the liquor vends were maintainable and meritorious on the material placed before the Court?

The Court applied Clause 2.3.8 of the J&K Excise Policy, under which a bidder must ordinarily obtain clearance from the District Magistrate for newly identified premises, but no fresh clearance is required where the liquor vend had operated from the same premises during the previous financial year.

It also considered Clause 2.3.14 of the Excise Policy concerning the consideration of local objections and relocation of a vend where objections are found sustainable.

Rule 30 of the Liquor Licence and Sale Rules, 1984 requires the views of relevant authorities, establishments and persons in the neighbourhood to be considered before granting a liquor licence; however, such objections must be examined through a proper and objective enquiry.

Section 47 of the J&K Excise Act empowers the competent authority to take action concerning nuisance or other statutory grounds, but such power must be exercised on relevant material and not selectively.

The Court relied on Balbir Singh v. State of J&K, OWP No. 486/2017, for the proposition that prior operation of a liquor vend does not permanently bar residents from raising legitimate objections, while also recognising that the objections and statutory standards must be applied fairly and uniformly.

The Court further reiterated that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor, which remains a privilege regulated by the State through its licensing regime.

The Court held that the disputed vend had operated from the same premises for two consecutive financial years and that the location had again been notified by the Excise Department for 2026–2027.

Under Clause 2.3.8, the successful bidder was therefore entitled to proceed without obtaining a fresh District Magistrate’s clearance.

Although residents’ objections were legally relevant, the Deputy Commissioner’s communication was not preceded by a comprehensive enquiry into the actual character of the locality or the operation of other similarly situated liquor establishments.

The record showed that restaurants, commercial establishments, other liquor vends and a bar were operating nearby, yet objections were directed selectively against the disputed vend.

The communication was also internally inconsistent because it permitted operation until 31 March 2026 but prohibited operation from the same premises in the succeeding year without demonstrating any material change in circumstances.

The Court concluded that the authorities had failed to apply a uniform, relevant and non-discriminatory standard.

It further found it unfair to initiate cancellation and forfeiture proceedings against Pritam Singh when his inability to commence operations arose from the authorities’ own decision preventing use of the premises.

The Deputy Commissioner’s communication dated 28 January 2026 and the consequential Excise Department communication dated 6 March 2026 were quashed.

The respondents were directed to undertake the consequential process and permit Pritam Singh to avail the benefits of his successful H-1 bid in accordance with the J&K Excise Policy for 2026–2027.

WP(C) No. 1951/2026 was also allowed, and the order dated 23 May 2026 proposing action against Pritam Singh was quashed.

WP(C) No. 234/2026 was partly allowed to the extent it challenged the communication dated 28 January 2026; the challenge concerning Sanchit Mahajan’s expired 2025–2026 licence was held infructuous.

WP(C) Nos. 735/2025, 1106/2025 and 757/2026 were dismissed as lacking merit, with no costs imposed.