1. The petitioner, feeling aggrieved by order dated 17.02.2026 passed by Excise Commissioner allotting a retail liquor shop at Dalanwala, Parade Ground, Dehradun in favour of respondent No. 5, has filed the present writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was allottee of the same shop during the financial years 2024-25 and 2025-26. The petitioner applied for renewal of the license of the said shop by submitting an application by physical mode in the office of District Excise Officer on 16.02.2026. However, the office of the District Excise Officer did not acknowledge receipt of the said application. 16.02.2026 was also last date fixed for submitting the renewal application. The petitioner waited till the next day, but when receipt was still not issued, she sent an e-mail at 05:20 PM on 17.02.2026 to the District Magistrate / Licensing Officer stating that she had submitted her application for renewal in the office of the District Excise Officer, Dehradun on 16.02.2026, but she has not been issued acknowledgement of receipt of the said application. She, accordingly, made prayer to him to issue necessary directions to the concerned officer to renew her license.

3. On the very next date, i.e. 17.02.2026, the Excise Commissioner, by the impugned order, allotted the shop in question to private respondent No. 5. The order of allotment records that no renewal application had been received in respect of the said shop and, therefore, after due deliberation, the shop in question was being allotted to respondent No. 5, having regard to the interest of the revenue. The order of allotment has purportedly been passed under Clause 42 of the Excise Policy.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 has been orchestrated by the District Excise Officer in collusion with the Excise Commissioner. It is submitted that as per Clause 2 of the Excise Policy issued on 05.03.2025, the shops, which remain unallotted, have to be allotted through a two-stage lottery system. If, even after following the said procedure, the shops could not be settled, the District Magistrate is empowered to receive application directly and make allotment on basis of first-come-first-serve. In the instant case, no such procedure was followed. Further, as 16.02.2026 was the last date for obtaining renewal applications, therefore, it is not known how the District Excise Officer and Excise Commissioner have proceeded to allot the shop in question in favour of private respondent No. 5 on the very next date. The entire exercise has been conducted surreptitiously to extend undue favour to private respondent No. 5, who is stated to be PRO of the local MLA, who also is a Minister.

5. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State submits that the allotment was made in favour of private respondent No. 5 as no application for renewal was received from the petitioner. However, he does not dispute that last date for submitting renewal applications was 16.02.2026 and the impugned allotment has been made on the very next date without following the procedure of lottery provided under Clause 2 of the Excise Policy.

6. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5, contended that the allegation in the writ petition that respondent No. 5 is PRO of the local Minister is incorrect.

7. Be that as it may, since it is not disputed that lottery system, as prescribed vide Clause 2 of the Excise Policy, has not been followed and on the very next date, the impugned allotment has been made, the entire excise on the face of it appears to be collusive. The resort to power under Clause 42 of the Excise Policy, a power conferred upon the Excise Commissioner to pass appropriate orders for removal of difficulties in implementing the Excise Policy, would not invest her with power to go against the specific provisions of the Excise Policy.

8. We find that two other allotments have been made in the same manner. In WPMB No. 395 of 2026 titled 'Garv Malhotra vs. State of Uttarakhand and others', wherein same order was under challenge in respect of the shop situated at Rajpur Road, Dehradun, we have passed an interim order on 19.05.2026, but we are informed that the Excise Commissioner has still not complied with the interim order and the allottee is still being permitted to operate the shop.

9. In the above facts and circumstance, we require the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun to hold an inquiry and apprise the Court as to the how any allotment can be made without following the procedure prescribed under the Excise Policy for settlement of shops, which had remained unallotted.

10. List on 04.06.2026, along with WPMB No. 395 of 2026, by which time, the respondents shall file their counter-affidavits.

11. Till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 17.02.2026 passed by respondent No. 3 allotting the shop at Dalanwala, Parade Ground, Dehradun in favour of private respondent No. 5 shall remain stayed.

12. Respondent No. 3 is directed to ensure that the order of this Court is immediately complied with.

13. Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand is directed to communicate the instant order to the District Magistrate, Dehradun forthwith and report compliance of the order.