Liquor vends’ tendering in Chandigarh under scanner amidst cartelisation allegations

The tendering process of liquor vends in Chandigarh for 2025-26 today came under judicial scanner, with a contractor alleging cartelisation and non-compliance with the excise policy. In a petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the petitioner-contractor has, among other things, contended that over 87 out of 97 liquor vends have been allocated to just two or three individuals operating under different firm names or through their relatives, associates, and employees.

Challenging the notice inviting tender (NIT) dated March 13, M/S Kler Wines and another petitioner through counsel Bikramjit Singh Patwalia contended that the entire process was carried out in contravention of the prescribed rules.

Seeking the quashing of the NIT, he added that the flawed process was also in violation of the Excise Policy 2025-26 as well as the Punjab Liquor Licence (Chandigarh Amendment) Rules, 2020. Elaborating, Patwalia contended that a clear policy restriction prevented any individual, firm, or company from acquiring more than 10 liquor vends to prevent cartelisation and monopolisation. But the respondents allotted more than 10 liquor vends each. These individuals, through their family, associates, and employees — forming a group of nearly 11 members — circumvented the restriction, while gaining excessive control over the liquor trade in the city.

Going into the legality of the issue, Patwalia added Clause 14 of the excise policy explicitly stated 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. The Chandigarh Administration’s failure to implement the provision allowed the private respondents to amass disproportionate control over the demand and supply of liquor.

It was added that the Chandigarh Administration failed to conduct the tendering process transparently and in accordance with the law. The excise policy was framed to ensure fair distribution of liquor vends and prevent monopolisation. However, the tendering process was designed in a manner that allowed select individuals or entities to bid in proxy, bypassing the policy restriction. This, the petitioner contended, defeated the very purpose of the excise policy.

Seeking directions to conduct a fresh, transparent tendering process, Patwalia added  compliance with the law was required to be ensured. The plea also sought a stay on the current allotment of liquor vends until the matter was decided by the court.