Excise Commissioner cannot relocate a permitted sub-shop solely because it adversely affects another licensee’s revenue.

The petitioner operated the main liquor shop allotted to him at Gwaldam and, pursuant to permission granted under the applicable Excise Policy by order dated 8 August 2024, opened a liquor sub-shop at Lolti, District Chamoli.

Respondent No. 5, who operated a liquor shop at Tharali, challenged the sub-shop on the ground that its proximity adversely affected his business and revenue.

The Commissioner, Excise, Uttarakhand allowed the appeal on 31 March 2026 and directed that the Lolti sub-shop be relocated to a place near Gwaldam, where the petitioner’s main shop was situated.

The petitioner challenged this order, contending, inter alia, that the appeal was barred by limitation, was not maintainable in the absence of a challengeable order, was decided without reasonable notice, and that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction under Rule 28.4(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy.

The District Excise Officer stated that the distance between the petitioner’s main shop and the Lolti sub-shop was 16 kilometres.

1. Whether the appeal filed by Respondent No. 5 under Section 11(1) of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910 was maintainable and within the prescribed limitation period?

2. Whether the Commissioner, Excise, possessed the power under Rule 28.4(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy to direct relocation of the petitioner’s sub-shop?

3. Whether the sub-shop could be relocated merely because its operation adversely affected the revenue or business of another liquor-shop licensee, in the absence of any prescribed distance restriction?

The Court applied Section 11(1) of the Uttarakhand Excise Act, 1910, including its proviso prescribing a 30-day limitation period for an appeal from the communication of the relevant order.

It further considered Rule 28.4(b) of the Uttarakhand Excise Policy, which authorises the District Magistrate to relocate a liquor shop from one place to another within the district; the power could not therefore be exercised by the Commissioner, Excise.

The Court also applied the principle that an appellate authority cannot entertain an appeal where there is no appealable order and cannot interfere with an administratively permitted sub-shop solely on the basis of loss of revenue to another licensee when the Excise Act, Excise Rules, or Excise Policy prescribe no maximum distance between a main shop and a sub-shop.

The petitioner’s sub-shop had been authorised by the order dated 8 August 2024, whereas Respondent No. 5’s challenge was brought substantially later; accordingly, the Court found substance in the contention that the appeal was barred by the 30-day limitation prescribed under Section 11(1).

The Court also held that the appeal was not maintainable because there was no order against which Respondent No. 5 could validly appeal.

Rule 28.4(b) vested the relocation power in the District Magistrate, not the Commissioner, Excise, and therefore the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to direct relocation under that provision.

Independently, the Court held that no statutory or policy provision prescribed a maximum distance between liquor shops or between a main shop and its sub-shop. Consequently, the alleged adverse impact on Respondent No. 5’s revenue, by itself, could not justify interference with the petitioner’s authorised sub-shop.

The impugned order dated 31 March 2026 was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed accordingly.