E-Paper
April to begin with dry spell at Chandigarh liquor vends
Following contractors’ claims of violation of Chandigarh administration’s 2025-26 Excise Policy at the recent liquor vend auction, HC stays operation of vends from April 1
Amid liquor contractors’ claims of “a single family” securing 90% of the liquor vends during a recent e-auction in violation of the 2025-26 UT Excise Policy, the Punjab and Haryana high court on Wednesday stayed the operation of all liquor vends in Chandigarh from April 1.
It effectively means that none of the total 96 vends auctioned by the administration will be able to start operations until at least April 3, when the high court will take up the petitions challenging the allotments again.
Meanwhile, with the current financial year ending at midnight on March 31, existing licensees will also be required to wrap up their operations, leading to no liquor sale at vends for at least three days in the new fiscal.
The court order came on multiple petitions challenging these allotments, alleging that a single family and their associates had secured 87 out of the 96 vends auctioned by the UT excise and taxation department.
In the auction held on March 21, the UT was able to auction 96 out of 97 liquor vends for the year 2025-26, raking in ₹606 crore in revenue—36% above the ₹439 crore reserve price.
Additionally, it generated ₹4.56 crore in participation fees, with 228 liquor contractors bidding for the 96 vends sold. The liquor vend at Palsora, on the outskirts of Chandigarh, secured the highest bid of ₹14 crore, well above the reserve price of ₹10.22 crore.
On that day itself, Darshan Singh Kler, president of the Wine Contractors’ Association, had alleged that the department had violated the UT Excise Policy, as only 10 vends could be allotted to a single firm or company. However, a firm from Madhya Pradesh had acquired multiple vends under different names.
During the hearing on Wednesday, counsels representing various contractors—senior advocates Puneet Bali, Chetan Mittal, and Sanjay Kaushal—asserted that the policy prohibited any individual, firm or company from acquiring more than 10 liquor vends to prevent cartelisation and monopolisation. However, the respondents allowed certain individuals and their associates to bypass the restriction, gaining disproportionate control over the liquor trade.
It was further submitted that Clause 14 of the Excise Policy explicitly mandated that any entity forming a monopoly or cartel to dominate the liquor trade must be treated as a single entity and subjected to the maximum allocation limit of 10 vends. However, the administration failed to enforce this provision. Policies are framed to ensure fair distribution of liquor vends and prevent monopolisation. The process adopted by the UT allowed select individuals or entities to bid in proxy, which, the petitioners argued, defeated the very purpose of the policy.
The counsels claimed that the number of vends acquired by what they termed as “cartels” had gone up to 92, a situation they described as a failure of the administration. They also questioned the transparency of the tendering process.
On the other hand, the UT’s legal team, led by senior advocates Rajiv Atma Ram and Amit Jhanji, defended the policy, arguing that the petitions were an attempt to operate beyond March 31, 2025.
After hearing the arguments, the bench of justice Sureshwar Thakur and justice Vikas Suri posted the matter for April 3 and directed all parties to maintain the status quo regarding the liquor vends for the year 2025-26, in essence halting the policy’s implementation from April 1.
