Selective complaints cannot deny auction benefit to liquor vend bidder: HC

21/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 20: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has quashed administrative orders that prevented a successful bidder from operating a liquor vend in Gandhi Nagar, holding that a bidder who succeeds in a government auction cannot be denied the benefit of allotment on the basis of selective complaints and unequal treatment.
Justice Sanjay Parihar passed the directions while deciding a batch of six writ petitions arising out of the controversy concerning a liquor vend in JMC Ward No. 20-D, Jammu.
The court allowed WP(C) No. 637/2026 filed by Pritam Singh, the successful H-1 bidder for the financial year 2026-27, and quashed the communication dated January 28, 2026 issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Jammu. The consequential communication issued by the Excise Department on March 6, 2026 was also set aside.
The authorities were directed to undertake the consequential process in favour of Singh and permit him to avail the benefit of his successful bid in accordance with the J&K Excise Policy 2026-27. The court also allowed WP(C) No. 1951/2026 and quashed the May 23, 2026 order proposing action against the bidder.
The controversy arose after residents objected to the operation of the liquor vend from Gandhi Nagar, alleging that it was located in a residential area, lacked requisite clearance and was causing nuisance in the locality.
The Excise Department, however, maintained that the same premises had housed a liquor vend during the preceding financial year and that under the applicable Excise Policy, fresh clearance from the District Magistrate was not required where a vend had operated from the same premises during the previous year.
The court noted that the vend had operated from the premises for two consecutive financial years and the successful bidder for 2026-27 was not required to obtain a fresh NOC merely because a fresh auction had taken place.
Justice Parihar observed that Singh had participated in an auction for a location specifically notified by the Excise Department and, after emerging as the H-1 bidder, was entitled to proceed on the basis that the vend could operate from the premises, subject to statutory and policy requirements.
The court also found fault with the manner in which complaints against the vend had been dealt with, observing that the authorities had not undertaken a comprehensive exercise to examine other similarly situated liquor establishments operating in the vicinity.
It noted that objections had been raised specifically against the disputed vend, while other liquor vends and commercial establishments were operating nearby without comparable challenges.
The court held that objections by residents must be considered objectively, uniformly and on the basis of relevant material, observing that one establishment cannot be singled out while similarly situated establishments are allowed to continue.
It further observed that if the residential character of the locality was made the basis for opposing the vend, the same yardstick would have to be applied to other liquor establishments in the area.
Rejecting the contention that apprehended nuisance could by itself justify denying the successful bidder the benefit of the auction, the court observed that the mere possibility of persons consuming liquor and creating nuisance on the road, without supporting material, could not constitute sufficient ground for such action.
The court held that a successful bidder in an auction conducted by the Excise Department is entitled to fair and non-discriminatory treatment under the applicable policy.
It also noted that the authorities' action adversely affected the bidder and had implications for government revenue while potentially conferring an unintended commercial advantage on competing establishments operating nearby.
The court refrained from imposing costs but cautioned the petitioners to exercise due care and responsibility while invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
The High Court also partly allowed WP(C) No. 234/2026 by quashing the January 28 communication, while holding that the challenge concerning Sanchit Mahajan's 2025-26 licence had become infructuous as the licence period had expired.
OWP No. 757/2026 and WP(C) Nos. 735/2025 and 1106/2025 were dismissed for lack of merit, bringing the litigation concerning the Gandhi Nagar liquor vend to a close.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty