The Punjab & Haryana High Court, while hearing a petition challenging the allocation of liquor vends under the Chandigarh Excise Policy 2025-2026, directed the petitioner to amend their plea to contest the constitutional validity of the policy.

The Court observed that the policy aimed to curb monopolistic practices in liquor licensing and reiterated that liquor is not an essential commodity, thus allowing its supply to be regulated without urgency.

The case stemmed from a plea questioning the allotment of liquor vends under Clause 14 of the Chandigarh Excise Policy 2025-2026, which restricts any single individual or entity from obtaining more than ten liquor licenses. The petitioner alleged that a particular family and its associates had acquired 87 out of 97 liquor vends in a recent auction, effectively monopolizing the liquor business in Chandigarh.

A division bench comprising Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri took note of these allegations and instructed the petitioner to examine the constitutional aspects of the policy. The Court emphasized the need for broad participation in the bidding process to maintain fairness and transparency.

Vault Liquor Private Limited, the petitioner, argued that the policy explicitly prohibits any individual or related entities—including those with common partners, directors, or associates—from securing more than ten licenses.

Despite this safeguard, the petitioner claimed that a single family and its affiliates had managed to dominate the auction process.

The petitioner further contended that the bidding process had been manipulated, as evidenced by the absence of competitive bidding among 12 alleged cartel members, leading to financial losses for the state exchequer.

They also submitted that representations had been made to the authorities, accompanied by a detailed report highlighting bid manipulation and cartelization. However, the authorities proceeded with the allocation without addressing these concerns.

During the proceedings, the Court underscored the necessity of ensuring fair competition in liquor licensing. It remarked, "The bidding process must allow for widespread participation to prevent rigging. You need to challenge the constitutionality of the policy. Liquor is not an essential commodity; its supply can be regulated." The bench further stressed that excise policies should be designed to prevent monopolistic tendencies and uphold public interest.

In light of the submissions and the Court's observations, the petitioner was directed to revise their plea to include a constitutional challenge to the excise policy. Additionally, the Court ordered that the allotment process be put on hold and scheduled the next hearing for April 3, 2025, to deliberate on the policy's validity.