Supreme Court Dismisses MP Government's Appeal Against Som Distilleries' Liquor Licence Renewal, Sets Aside ₹1 Lakh Costs

Bhopal (Madhya Pradesh): The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed the MP government's petition filed to challenge the High Court (HC) order wherein the latter had ordered the renewal of the liquor licences of Som Distilleries.

The matter was heard by a bench that included Justice Joymalya Bagchi. Senior advocate Naman Nagrath, counsel for Som Distilleries company, said, "SC has dismissed government petition and upheld HC order for renewal of Som Distillery licences.

The Supreme Court has also set aside Rs 1 lakh costs imposed on the state government by the MP High Court.

During the SC hearing, companies’ lawyers argued that there are barely seven liquor companies in the state and used a Hindi saying to describe the company's position in Madhya Pradesh that one cannot live in the water and have enmity with a crocodile (referring to the state government).

The state government, through its counsel, replied in a lighter vein, "You are swimming in liquor, not water."

The dispute began in February 2026, when the excise commissioner suspended eight licences held by two Som group companies under Section 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915.

On March 23, 2026, a single HC bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal dismissed the companies' petition, holding that the procedural requirements of Section 31(1-A) had not been met.

On April 15, 2026, a division bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal disposed of the writ appeal, holding that renewal applications should be decided on their own merits under the Act and not be prejudiced by the writ court's observations.

According to the company's disclosure, the renewal applications for the 2026-27 licensing year were thereafter rejected by an order dated June 18, 2026.

By a judgment of September 24, 2026, the HC set that order aside and directed the renewal of all manufacturing licences within 15 days, awarded Rs 1 lakh as costs against the state and preserved the company's right to seek damages for losses during the closure period before an appropriate forum.