Supreme Court Allows Fresh Proceedings in UP Liquor Licence Cancellation Case

Date:

Apex Court partly sets aside Allahabad High Court relief; permits State to issue fresh show cause notice to licensee Mayoor Ahuja

Supreme Court Modifies High Court Ruling, Allows Fresh Proceedings

The Supreme Court, in an order dated April 6, 2026, partly allowed civil appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh. The case is State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. Mayoor Ahuja.

The Court held that the cancellation of the respondent’s liquor licence was not valid. However, it allowed the State to start fresh proceedings as per law.

Mayoor Ahuja held a CL-2 licence for wholesale vending of country liquor in Badaun and Sambhal districts for the excise year 2020–21.

On March 4, 2021, authorities conducted an inspection. They later issued a show cause notice. The notice cited several issues, including:

  • No signboards
  • Shortage of stock
  • No CCTV cameras
  • Lack of fire safety equipment

The respondent denied the allegations. Despite this, the Excise Commissioner cancelled the licence on March 27, 2021. The authority also forfeited the security deposit.

The order relied on additional allegations, such as:

  • Illegal transportation
  • Forged barcodes
  • Loss to the State exchequer

A revision petition was dismissed on February 23, 2024. The respondent then approached the Allahabad High Court.

On April 23, 2025, the High Court set aside the cancellation order.

The Court found that:

  • The order relied on allegations not mentioned in the show cause notice
  • Many violations were minor and compoundable
  • Authorities recorded findings without prior notice or evidence

The Court held that the order violated principles of natural justice. It ruled the cancellation unsustainable.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court on key points. It held that:

  • The violations were minor
  • The cancellation order was legally flawed

However, the Court noted a problem. The High Court’s ruling prevented the State from taking any further action.

The Bench stated that regulating the liquor trade requires accountability. It observed that the High Court should have allowed lawful action instead of closing all options.

spot_img

Share post:

Popular

More like this
Related

Supreme Court Acquits Former Clerk in Bribery Case

The Supreme Court has stressed that Bribery Demand Proof...

Supreme Court Examines Shiv Sena Symbol Dispute

The Supreme Court has raised a key question in...

Supreme Court Upholds Excess Pay Recovery From NIT Calicut Teachers

The Supreme Court has upheld the Recovery of Excess...

Higher Marks Cannot Cure Lack of Essential Qualification: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that an Essential Recruitment...