Pawan Khajuria vs UT of J&K and others

Temporary license No. 60255/300/2026-27 dated 13.04.2026 issued by the Excise Commissioner, Jammu in favour of Ankit Gupta, respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 1065/2026 and petitioner in WP(C) No. 729/2026, is the subject matter of both these writ petitions, as such, both writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

WP(C) No. 1065/2026 has been filed for quashing the Temporary License No. 60255/300/2026-27, issued by respondent No. 2, in favour of respondent No. 4 to the extent it allows the opening of the liquor vend in the shop of the petitioner situated at Pathwal, Dayala Chack, District Kathua and commanding the respondents 1 to 3 to shift the liquor vend from the shop of the petitioner to any other location in the same Panchayat.

The contention of the petitioner is that in the month of March 2026, respondent No. 4 approached him with a proposal to take on rent shop of the petitioner situated at Panchayat Pathwal. The petitioner accepted the offer and rented out his shop to respondent No.4 for a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000/- by executing the rent deed dated 11.03.2026. After obtaining the shop on rent from the petitioner, respondent No. 4 started furnishing the same for operating the liquor vend. When the family members, relatives and the neighbours of the petitioner came to know that, they raised objections to the opening of the liquor shop. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No. 4 and expressed his inability to allow his shop to be run for selling liquor, whereupon respondent No. 4 assured him that he would endeavor to secure an alternative shop in the same Panchayat and sought some time from the petitioner. When respondent No. 4 did not do the needful, the petitioner served a legal notice upon respondent No. 4, cancelling the tenancy on 17.03.2026. Notwithstanding the fact that respondent No. 4 had told the petitioner that he would endeavour to secure an alternative shop, he continued to process his case for the issuance of a licence with the official respondents culminating in the issuance of temporarily Licence No. 60255/300/2026-27 dated 13.04.2026. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 again requested the petitioner to allow him to operate the liquor shop in the rented shop until an alternative shop was secured by him, but the petitioner categorically told him that he would not allow him to sell liquor from his shop due to religious sanctions.

The petitioner further contends that the licence granted in favour of respondent No. 4 violates the prevailing liquor policy, as the subject shop falls within the prohibited 50 metres radius of a place of worship. It is also submitted that the policy mandates obtaining a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the local neighbourhood. Further, the petitioner asserts that his shop is situated 220 metres away from the National Highway. In support of these contentions, the petitioner relies upon various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to submit that no liquor vend can be permitted to operate in breach of mandatory distance restrictions.

The official respondents have filed their objections/reply, contending that Temporary Licence bearing No. 60255/300/2026-27 dated 13.04.2026 was issued by the competent authority strictly in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Excise Act, the J&K Liquor License and Sale Rules, 1984, and the applicable Excise Policy. It is submitted that the grant of licence was preceded by due scrutiny of records and physical verification of the subject premises by the Excise Department.

The official respondents emphasize that the petitioner, having admittedly executed a rent agreement in favour of respondent No. 4, cannot now challenge the consequential grant of licence. Any dispute arising out of the tenancy is purely a private inter se dispute between the landlord and the tenant, having no bearing upon the statutory validity of the licence. No vested right accrues to the petitioner-owner to seek cancellation of a validly issued licence on the strength of a private tenancy dispute.

It is further submitted that the licence was sanctioned for the location strictly as per the site plan submitted by the licensee. Any request for relocation or shifting of the vend, governed by Clause 2.3.10 of the Excise Policy, 2026-27, can be considered by the competent authority only upon a formal application filed by the licensee in compliance with the prescribed conditions. Furthermore, during the processing of the application, the Excise Department issued a communication dated 18.03.2026 directing the licensee to ensure that the proposed premises along National Highway-44 strictly conform to the governing Policy and the distance norms laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The said communication, however, came to be challenged before this Court in WP(C) No. 729/2025, titled Ankit Gupta v. Union Territory of J&K and others. While entertaining the said petition, the Court, vide order dated 20.04.2026, directed the parties to maintain status quo on spot with respect to the subject matter of the dispute and further directed the official respondents not to take any further action in respect of the allotted vend site. Accordingly, the official respondents submit that they are bound by and have acted strictly in compliance with the aforesaid directions of this Court.

In WP(C) No. 729/2026, the petitioner seeks quashing of the notice dated 18.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner was directed to submit a revised site plan in conformity with the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court governing the establishment of liquor vends along National Highways. The impugned notice was issued upon the premise that the location proposed by the petitioner failed to adhere to the distance norms laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court.

The petitioner challenges the notice dated 18.03.2026 inter alia on the ground that respondent No. 5 has omitted to specify the precise directions or guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or the High Court alleged to have been violated. The petitioner asserts that the liquor vend is located at a distance of 220 metres from the National Highway, strictly adhering to the mandated distance parameters. Additionally, it is pleaded that the impugned notice is wholly without jurisdiction, as respondent No. 5 (Excise Inspector) is not a statutory authority empowered under the J&K Excise Act, 1958, or the Rules framed thereunder to issue such directives, those powers being restricted solely to the Excise Commissioner, Deputy Excise Commissioner, and Excise and Taxation Officer.

In their response, the official respondents contend that the petitioner cannot claim to be aggrieved by the notice dated 18.03.2026 issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioner was directed to submit a proposal for shifting his liquor vend to alternative premises situated at least 220 metres away from the National Highway. It is submitted that the notice was issued in accordance with the directions laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time regarding the prohibition on the operation of liquor vends along National and State Highways, as the petitioner’s vend failed to meet the requisite distance criteria.

The official respondents further state that respondent No. 5 issued the impugned notice under the instructions of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Excise Range, Kathua. On the question of jurisdiction, it is submitted that Section 4 of the J&K Excise Act, 1958, provides for the exercise of statutory powers by the Excise Commissioner, Deputy Excise Commissioner, Excise and Taxation Officers, and "such other officers" as may be appointed under the Act. Since Excise Inspectors are duly appointed under the statutory scheme, the expression "other officers" encompasses an Excise Inspector. On these grounds, the official respondents maintain that the notice issued by respondent No. 5 is legally valid and within jurisdiction

Mr. M. K. Bhardwaj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1065/2026, has argued that respondent No. 4 cannot operate the liquor vend from the petitioner’s shop, particularly when the official respondents themselves have admitted that respondent No. 4 cannot operate the said vend from the premises of the petitioner in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. He has further submitted that the petitioner has terminated the tenancy of respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the temporary licence issued in favour of respondent No. 4 is liable to be cancelled.

Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 729/2026 and for respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 1065/2026, has submitted that the challenge to the impugned notice is primarily anchored on the ground of jurisdictional competence. It is submitted that the J&K Excise Act, 1958, does not confer any power upon an Excise Inspector to issue such a notice, as statutory authority under the Act is strictly limited to the Excise Commissioner, Deputy Excise Commissioner, and Excise and Taxation Officer.

Per contra, Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Sr. AAG appearing for the official respondents in both the petitions, has submitted that the impugned notice was issued by the competent authority, as the Excise Inspector falls within the expression “officer so appointed” occurring in Section 4 of the Excise Act. She has further contended that both the petitions have been filed by the petitioners in connivance with each other, with the object of ensuring that the Department suffers a loss of minimum guaranteed revenue. She has also submitted that the respondents have already filed an application seeking modification of the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Court in WP(C) No. 729/2026.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1065/2026 shall hereinafter be referred to as the 'petitioner-owner', whereas the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 729/2026 (also arrayed as respondent No. 4 in W.P.(C) No. 1065/2026) shall be referred to as the 'petitioner-licensee'.

The controversy in the present petitions essentially revolves around the location of the licensed premises. The petitioner-owner has challenged the temporary licence issued in favour of the petitioner-licensee on the ground that the latter cannot operate a liquor vend from the subject shop, as no such vend can be permitted within a distance of 50 metres from any place of worship. At the same time, the petitioner-owner has admitted in paragraph 8 of the petition that his shop is situated 220 metres from the National Highway, whereas the official respondents, in their reply, have stated that the rented shop cannot be permitted to function as a liquor vend as it violates the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning the operation of liquor vends along National/State Highways.

It is an admitted position that the petitioner-owner executed a rent agreement in favour of respondent No. 4 with the petitioner's son acting as an attesting witness, wherein it was explicitly stipulated that the shop was being let out for the purpose of carrying on a liquor business. Having consciously demised the premises for the liquor trade, the petitioner-owner cannot now be permitted to turn around and maintain a writ petition asserting that the vend cannot operate due to its proximity to a religious place. This is particularly so, given that such a ground was never cited by the official respondents in their reply to justify the impugned notice dated 18.03.2026. Had any local residents or members of the public felt aggrieved by the location of the liquor vend owing to its proximity to a place of worship, they could have sought legal remedy in their own right. The petitioner, having knowingly leased the property for this precise commercial use, cannot be permitted to espouse such an objection at this stage.

It is the submission of the official respondents that the impugned notice was issued by the Excise Inspector to the petitioner-licensee on the ground that the site plan submitted by the latter did not conform to the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Court. However, no specific direction or judgment has been cited in the impugned notice. The official respondents contend in their reply that the petitioner-licensee has violated the distance norms prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court concerning National and State Highways, this contention assumes significance in light of the admission made by the petitioner-owner, who vehemently opposes the operation of the vend from the subject shop, that the said premises is situated at a distance of 220 metres from the National Highway.

Be that as it may, the notice dated 18.03.2026 is vague and lacks necessary particulars. Further it has been urged by the petitioner-licensee that respondent No. 5-Excise Inspector is not competent to issue the impugned notice. In this context, it would be appropriate to take note of the Section 4 of the Excise Act, which is extracted as under:

22 Under Section 4 of the Act, statutory powers are vested in the officers appointed by the Government, namely the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Excise and Taxation Officer. The contention of the official respondents that the expression 'the officers so appointed' occurring in Section 4(1) of the Excise Act encompasses an Excise Inspector is wholly misconceived. The phrase 'the officers so appointed' is strictly referable to the Commissioner, Deputy Commissioner, and Excise and Taxation Officer, and does not extend to an Excise Inspector. Furthermore, the plea that the impugned notice was issued by the Excise Inspector pursuant to the verbal instructions of the Excise and Taxation Officer concerned cannot be countenanced. Administrative actions, particularly those affecting legal rights, cannot be predicated upon oral directions.

23 In view of the foregoing discussion, the notice dated 18.03.2026 issued by the Excise Inspector is quashed. The competent authority shall, however, be at liberty to issue a fresh notice to the petitioner-licensee in accordance with law, if so warranted, specifically indicating the alleged violations of the guidelines/directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India governing the establishment and operation of liquor vends, and thereafter shall proceed in terms of law/rules.

24 Both petitions are accordingly disposed of.