An order shifting a licensed liquor shop without notice and hearing violates natural justice.

The petitioner was allotted a foreign liquor shop at Nainital Road No. 3 for the financial years 2026–27 and 2027–28. He deposited the prescribed licence fee of ₹1,82,000 and two cheques of ₹7,42,560 each with the District Excise Officer, Nainital.

The shop, initially taken on lease at Mangoli, was shifted to a location near Dak Bangla, Kaladhungi Road, allegedly due to public agitation.

Subsequently, relying upon a letter dated 15 August 2026 from the local MLA, the District Magistrate, Nainital, directed the petitioner on 22 August 2026 to shift the shop to another location within seven days.

The petitioner challenged the order on the ground that it was issued without a show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing and was passed at the instance of the local MLA.

Upon instructions, the respondents admitted that no notice or hearing had been provided before passing the impugned order.

1. Whether the District Magistrate could direct the shifting of the petitioner’s licensed foreign liquor shop without issuing a show-cause notice or providing an opportunity of hearing

2. Whether the impugned order dated 22 August 2026, passed principally on the basis of public agitation and a letter from the local MLA, was sustainable in law

The Court applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the audi alteram partem rule, which requires that a person whose licence, business, or legal interests may be adversely affected must receive prior notice of the proposed action and a meaningful opportunity of hearing.

An administrative order affecting the petitioner’s licensed business, passed without notice or hearing, is legally unsustainable.

The direction to shift the liquor shop materially affected the petitioner’s licensed business and therefore could not validly be issued without first informing him of the proposed action and allowing him to respond.

The respondents’ instructions expressly admitted that neither a show-cause notice nor an opportunity of hearing had been given.

The stated basis for the order was public agitation and the local MLA’s letter, but those circumstances did not dispense with the procedural safeguard of natural justice.

Accordingly, the Court held that the order had been passed in “utter violation” of the principles of natural justice and could not be sustained.

It permitted the respondents to initiate fresh proceedings in accordance with law if shifting was considered necessary, provided that the petitioner was first issued a show-cause notice and given an opportunity of hearing before any fresh order was passed.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.