Liquor-shop relocation challenge left undecided on merits; State directed to file its reply within seven days.

The appellant, a liquor-shop licensee, challenged the order dated 13 August 2026 in W.P. No. 32760/2026, by which the writ Court declined interim relief against the proposed shifting of her liquor shop.

The proposed relocation was based on a recommendation of the District Development Coordination and Monitoring Committee (“DISHA Committee”).

The appellant contended that the DISHA Committee lacked jurisdiction to recommend or direct relocation of a liquor shop.

The State relied on the High Court’s earlier order dated 21 August 2026 in Malwa Realities Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.A. No. 3000/2026, which concerned a similar relocation based on a DISHA Committee recommendation.

The appeal was maintainable under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

The Court applied the principle of judicial consistency by extending, mutatis mutandis, the directions issued in the materially similar case of Malwa Realities.

In that precedent, the Court noted that the relocation notice referred to a DISHA Committee recommendation without placing the recommendation or the source of the Committee’s jurisdiction on record; it therefore directed an expedited response without deciding the merits.

The Court also recognised that the applicable Excise Policy, including paragraph 5.11 concerning relocation of composite liquor shops, remained relevant to the merits, but did not finally determine the interaction between the policy and the DISHA Committee’s recommendation.

The Court found the facts of the present appeal substantially similar to those in Malwa Realities, both involving the proposed shifting of a liquor shop at the instance of the DISHA Committee.

Since the earlier decision had declined to grant immediate interim relief but required the State to file its reply promptly and protected the licensee’s ability to seek compensation or extension of the licence for losses caused by shifting, the Court considered it appropriate to adopt the same approach.

The Court did not adjudicate the appellant’s contention that the DISHA Committee lacked jurisdiction; instead, it left the issue open for consideration by the writ Court after receipt of the State’s response.

The respondents were directed to file their reply before the writ Court within seven days or adopt the reply filed in W.P. No. 32758/2026.

The writ Court was directed to list W.P. No. 32760/2026 along with W.P. No. 32758/2026.

The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits, and the appellant’s entitlement to pursue lawful remedies for losses caused by the shifting, including seeking extension of the licence, remained governed by the directions in Malwa Realities.