Compilation of Court Cases on Number and Location of Liquor Shops

U.P. Number & Location Rules, 1968 — Complete Case Law Digest

Order DateCase No.Case Summary Status Download
25/02/2008Special Leave Petition (civil) 7756 of 2006 State of U.P. v. Manoj Kumar Dwived“Close proximity” जैसी अस्पष्ट अभिव्यक्ति को निश्चित करने के लिए 100 metres/300 ft को उचित criterion माना गया।disposed ofView
02/02/2010WRIC(A)_39914_2009 Bishop Johnson School And College Thru Principal And Another Vs. StateRule 5(4) के तहत दूरी घटाने वाले संशोधन को Article 14 के आधार पर manifestly unreasonable/arbitrary मानकर strike down किया गया था, Distance objection वाले मामलों में object/purpose के लिए उपयोगी; पर judgment के विरुद्ध SC में interim stay का तथ्य बाद के HC decision में दर्ज हैAllowedView
22/03/2010SLP (C) No.- 007551 of 2010 STATE OF U.P.& ORS. VERSUS BISHOP JOHNSON SCHOOL & COLLEGE & ORS.From the judgement and order dated 02/02/2010 in CMWP No. 39914/2009 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABADCase Status bishop johnson case as on 10-August-2026View
22/12/2017WPIL(A)_41593_2011Akhil Bhartiya Sarva Jan Hitay Sarva Jan
Sukhay Parishad
number and locationThe present licences may be permitted to be operated
only till 31st March, 2018 from the present location/site.
View
02/05/2024WPIL(A)_335_2024Master Atharva Minor v. State of U.Pबाद में school अस्तित्व में आने वाले proviso की Court ने सीमित व्याख्या की; अगले excise year में licence/renewal के लिए Rule 5(4)(a) compliance आवश्यक माना।partly allowedView
17/07/2025WPIL(A)_1803_2025Vineeta Sharma v. State of U.Pयदि shop licensed locality में है और Rules, 1968 का situs उल्लंघन सिद्ध नहीं है, तो केवल nuisance allegation पर removal का आदेश नहींdismissedView
30/10/2025WPIL(A)_813_2025Samir Kumar Banerji and 10 others Vs State of U.P. and 8 othersResidential colony / temple / amended distance, Rule 5(4) objection में protected place/colony का factual एवं legal character सिद्ध होना आवश्यक; Court ने 2008 amendment और earlier judgments की स्थिति examine की, “Residential colony” अथवा “place of worship” केवल assertion से नहीं माना जाएगा;documentary/site evidence आवश्यकdimissed View
19/05/2025WPIL(L)_485_2025Mahesh Soni And 7 Others Vs. State Of U.P.2025-26 की composite liquor shop की location को challenge करने वाली PIL; current Rule 5 framework के लिए relevant है।dismissed
WPIL(L)_485_2025 Hindi
View
30/11/1970यह Rules, 1968 के शुरुआती महत्वपूर्ण judgments में है। Court ने Rule 2 तथा Rule 5 की scheme examine की। Rule 5(1) के अनुसार shops की location और site Collector द्वारा निर्धारित की जानी है। Settlement के दौरान site change सामान्य नियम नहीं है; cogent reasons आवश्यक हैं।Sushil Chandra v. State of U.P., 30.11.1970 (Allahabad HC)Licensee स्वयं यह दावा नहीं कर सकता कि उसे अपनी पसंद के स्थान पर shop चलाने का absolute right है, स्थान परिवर्तन के आवेदन पर Collector को statutory suitability, public interest और Rules के restrictions independently examine करने चाहिए।dismissed View
16/12/2005C.M.W.P. No. 86 of 2004, decided 16.12.2005Pankaj Garg v. State of U.P., 16.12.2005 (Allahabad HC)दुकान की location/shifting, विरोध के कारण दुकान बंद होने और licence-fee remission से जुड़ा महत्वपूर्ण मामला।dismissedView
12/11/2010Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1043 of 2010 (Allahabad HC)Rakesh Singh v. State of U.P., 12.11.2010 Court ने माना कि Rule 2-A/Rule 5 के अधीन Collector cogent reasons दर्ज करके liquor shop को relocate कर सकता है।One of us (Justice Yatindra Singh) has dismissed the writ petition; whereas, the other (Justice Rajes Kumar) has allowed the writ petition.View
29/05/2013Writ Petition No. 657 (MB) of 2002 (LUCKNOW BENCH)Anoop Kumar Jaiswal And Another vs State Of U.P. Through Secy. Nagar Vikas Nagar Nigam objection / Rule 5(8), Urban area में local body को notice औपचारिकता मात्र नहीं; objection को Collector द्वारा consider करना आवश्यक, Nagar Nigam objection पर reasoned consideration आवश्यकdismissedView
04/09/2003C.M.W.P No. 822 of 2003Krishna Kumar v. State Of U.P And OthersNumber/location/new shop,Shops की संख्या और location तय करने का statutory क्षेत्र Collector/Excise authorities का, किसी व्यक्ति को किसी particular shop/location के लिए vested right नहींdismissedView
02/04/2014Civil Misc. Review Application No. 120475 of 2014 IN WRIT - C No. - 16750 of 2014Cantonment Board Meerut v. State of U.P.Cantonment area, Rule 2-A के अंतर्गत cantonment में shop location के लिए competent military authority की prior consent का प्रश्न महत्वपूर्ण, Cantonment cases में सामान्य Collector approval पर्याप्त मानकर नहीं चलना चाहिएdisposed View
WPIL/1178/2026 RAM KISHUN KESARWANI VS STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERSnumber and locationView
08/12/2010WPIL(A)_70304_2010Ram Kishun Kesarwani Vs State of U.P. and otherscountry liquor shop in the residential areadisposed of with directionView
Listing Date (08-04-2026)WRIC(L)_10759_2025Dinesh Yadav And 3 Others Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Excise Lko. And 5 OthersIt has been submitted by learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner that license of a liquor shop has been issued by the State
respondents in favour of respondent no. 6, which is the immediate vicinity
of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Institute of Medical Sciences, Vibhuti
Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
View
23/04/2026WTAX(A)_1574_2025A.H. Wheeler & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs State Of U.P. And 7 Othersnumber and locationLet the matter be posted again on 11th May, 2026 View
02/09/2025WPIL(A)_2190_2025Indra Mohan Shukla Vs State of UPnumber and location dismissed with observation Serious allegations have been made against the counsel for the petitionerView
24/03/2025WPIL(A)_610_2025Ravikant Kesarwani And 6 Others Vs State Of U.P. And 6 Othersnumber and location disposed of View
THE BOMBAY FOREIGN LIQUOR RULES, 1953View
THE TAMIL NADU LIQUOR RETAIL VENDING (IN SHOPS AND BARS) RULES, 2003View