The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Monday questioned the Chandigarh Administration for granting a fresh liquor licence in a building declared unsafe and under a demolition order since 2014, directing the UT Chief Secretary to file a personal affidavit explaining the lapse.

A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, hearing a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by city resident Rajbir Singh Rai, said it was “not only surprising but also shocking” that a liquor vend and tavern were permitted to operate from SCO 125-127, Sector 17-B, despite a subsisting demolition order.

The premises had been ordered to be demolished on July 1, 2014, by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Central), UT Chandigarh, after being declared unfit and unsafe for human habitation by multiple authorities.

The controversy arose after the administration granted Licence No. 310032 (L-2) to M/s CBD Biomedica (India) Pvt Ltd under the Excise Policy 2026-27, allowing retail sale of liquor on the ground floor and a tavern in the basement of the same building.

According to the petition, the licence was issued pursuant to a tender process in which the company emerged successful. The petitioner contended the allotment was ex facie illegal and in violation of the demolition order and safety norms.

The court noted that despite a show-cause notice issued by the administration on August 7, 2025, regarding unauthorised use of the premises, no further action had been taken. Instead, the same premises were allowed to be used for commercial activity.

“The owner obviously for earning money has very conveniently occupied the premises and leased out the building to the liquor licensee,” the bench observed, adding that “the UT Administration prima facie seems to be hand in glove with the owner and the licensee”.

The petition also pointed to an apparent conflict, noting that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Central), who is part of the committee approving liquor licences, had himself issued the 2014 demolition order but failed to bring it to the committee’s notice.

Directing the Chief Secretary to respond, the bench sought an explanation on why the 2025 show-cause notice had not been taken to its logical conclusion and how a building declared unsafe was allowed to house a liquor vend.

The matter has been posted for April 30.

The petitioner, represented by senior advocate Anand Chhibbar along with a team of counsel, has sought an interim stay on the operation of the liquor vend and cancellation of the licence, arguing that permitting commercial activity in a condemned structure violates public safety and the State’s obligation under Article 21.