Chandigarh: The Chandigarh Wine Contractor Association has called for an investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) and the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into alleged irregularities in the recent liquor vend auction process.
Allegations of Favoritism and Monopoly
According to Darshan Singh Kler, president of the association, the UT Excise Policy 2025-26 clearly states that a single firm or company can be allotted a maximum of 10 liquor vends. However, in the recent auction, the UT Excise and Taxation Department allegedly allotted 33 vends to a single family, raising concerns about favoritism and cartelization.
Breaking down the allotment, Kler claimed that:
-
One individual received eight vends
-
His wife got nine vends
-
Their son was allotted seven vends
-
Another company, where the same individual was a director, received nine vends
Additionally, 87 out of the 96 total vends were allegedly allotted to just two or three individuals operating under different firms or through relatives, associates, and employees.
Questions Over Financial Transactions and Security Deposits
Kler further alleged that the earnest money deposits submitted by applicants were refunded immediately, whereas standard practice dictates that these funds are only refunded after the successful bidders deposit the required security amount. This unusual haste in refunding money and allotting vends has raised suspicions.
The association has also questioned the role of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner and other officials, alleging that the tender and allotment process violated the Excise Policy 2025-26 and the Competition Act 2002, leading to cartelization of the liquor trade.
Excise Department Denies Wrongdoing
The Excise and Taxation Department has denied all allegations, calling them misconceived and unfounded. Officials stated that the bidding process was conducted transparently, following all legal procedures.
In response to the association’s legal challenge before the Punjab and Haryana High Court, the department argued that the contractors had no right to challenge the process, as they themselves participated in the auction but failed to secure the bids. It further claimed that the highest bidders were declared winners through a fair and competitive process.
Despite these denials, the liquor contractors are pushing for a high-level probe to examine the financial transactions and alleged violations in the allotment process.
