The Uttarakhand High Court has intervened in a dispute involving a licensed liquor vendor in Nainital, directing district authorities to take formal action regarding ongoing protests at the business site. The court’s order comes after the business owner alleged that demonstrators were obstructing his legal trade and creating a risk of “untoward incidents.”
The matter was brought before the court by Suresh Chandra Upreti, a local businessman who holds a valid retail license for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL). Upreti approached the High Court seeking protection for his business interests, claiming that while he is operating legally under state-issued permits, his ability to conduct trade is being hampered by individuals staging protests directly outside his premises.
In his petition, Upreti argued that it is the state’s fundamental responsibility to ensure the safety and security of valid license holders. He expressed concerns that the volatile atmosphere created by the protesters could lead to accidents or violence, further damaging his business reputation and financial stability.
During the hearing, the State counsel responded to the petitioner’s concerns by clarifying that the administration has not been idle. The court was informed that adequate police protection is currently being provided at the site to maintain law and order and to prevent any adverse situations from escalating.
The petitioner, however, maintained that a more permanent administrative resolution was required, noting that he had previously submitted a formal representation to the District Magistrate (DM) which had not yet resulted in the cessation of the protests.
After hearing the arguments, a single-judge bench of Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari emphasized the need for the district administration to evaluate the legal standing of the complaint.
The Court directed the Nainital District Magistrate to consider the petitioner’s representation and take an “appropriate decision” in accordance with the law. The administration has been granted a three-week window to conclude this process and determine the necessary course of action to balance public protest rights with the legal rights of a licensed vendor.
