Surendra Mewara vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12541 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7902/2021

1. Surendra Mewara S/o Bhikham Chand Mewara, Aged About 46 Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o 23/94, Chopasani Housing Board, District Jodhpur. Shop Geeta Ashram Road Ward No. 11, 12, District Jaisalmer).

2. Vinod Kumar Thanvi S/o Rajendra Kumar Thanvi, Aged About 45 Years, By Caste Thanvi, R/o Dibba Para, District Jaisalmer. (Shop Kila Parking Ward No. 25, 27, 37, 38, District Jaisalmer).

3. Kamla Devi Mewara W/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 63 Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o Shanti Nagar, Hatiram Ji Ka Oda, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. (Shop No. 1, Jalori Gate Se Akhliya Choraya, District Jodhpur).

4. Mahendra Singh Chouhan S/o Bhanwar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 58 Years, By Caste Chouhan, R/o Plot No. 63, Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur. (Shop No. 2, District Jodhpur), (Shop No. 4, Nai Sarak To Sojati Gate, District Jodhpur).

5. Manoj Sisodiya S/o Pukhraj Sisodiya, Aged About 42 Years, By Caste Sisodiya, R/o Sisodiya House, Pal Road, Jodhpur, Shop No. 06, District Jodhpur. (Shop No. 6 Jalori Gate Se Akhaliya Choraya, District Jodhpur).

6. Prashant Gangwani S/o Murlidhar Gangwani, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Gangwani, R/o Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, District Jodhpur. (Shop Gaddi Tirahe Se Pyare Moyhan, District Jodhpur).

7. Divykumar Gangwani S/o Murlidhar Gangwani, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Gangwani, R/o Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, District Jodhpur. (Shop No. 3, Jaljog Chauraha Se 12Th Road Chauraya, District Jodhpur).

8. Meera Devi Gangwani W/o Mulridhar Gangwani, Aged About 59 Years, By Caste Gangwani, R/o Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, District Jodhpur. (Shop No. 1St, Puliya Chopasani Housing Board Se 34D Pulia, District Jodhpur).

9. Ruchit Talwar S/o Harish Talwar, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Talwar, R/o Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur. (Shop No. 2, Jalore Gate To Akhaliya Choraya, District Jodhpur)

10. Anju Mewara W/o Radheshyam Mewara, Aged About 42

(2 of 5) [CW-7902/2021]

Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o Nimaj Ki Haveli Ke Samne, Mahaveer Bhawan, District Jodhpur. (Shop No. 3 To 6, Transport Nagar, Basani Ii, District Jodhpur).

11. Harishita Mewara D/o Radhyeshyam Mewara, Aged About 20 Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o Nimaj Ki Haveli Ke Samne, Mahaveer Bhawan, District Jodhpur. (Shop Tilwariya Phata, Choupasani, District Jodhpur) (Ratanada Mohanpura Puliya Shop No. 1, District Jodhpur).

12. Pallavi Tak W/o Ravi Tak, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Tak, R/o Mahaveer Nagar, Bhinmal, District Jalore. (Shop Shobhagpura, Circle Girwa, District Udaipur).

13. Yogendra Kumat Tak S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 67 Years, By Caste Tak, R/o Lotiyana, Ajmer, Beawar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Shop Kaladwas, District Udaipur).

14. Ravi Kumar Tak S/o Rajendra Kumar Tak, Aged About 35 Years, By Caste Tak, R/o Bhinmal, District Jalore. (Shop No. 10, Udaipur East, District Udaipur).

15. Monika Suhalka W/o Vikash Suhalka, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Suhalka, R/o Sector 13, Hiran Magari, District Udaipur. (Shop No. 6, Udaipur West, District Udaipur).

16. Girdhari Singh S/o Sawai Singh, Aged About 38 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Ram Nagar, District Jaipur. (Shop No. 25, Udaipur West, District Udaipur).

17. Baby Bai W/o Dal Chandji, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Suhalka, R/o Mulaba Gavadi, Nauwa, District Udaipur. (Shop Jink Smelter, Girwa, District Udaipur).

18. Urmila Mewara W/o Champa Lal, Aged About 51 Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o Sayra, Udaipur. (Shop No. 1, Bhanupura, District Udaipur).

19. Joshi Sidhi Bansilal D/o Bansilal Joshi, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste Joshi, R/o Katargram Surat City, District Surat, Gujrat. (Shop No. 1, Singhara, District Udaipur).

20. Mahaveer Mewara S/o Ratanlal, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o Parvat Patia, Surat City, Gujrat. (Shop No. 1, Sameeja, District Udaipur). (Shop No. 1, Malwa Ka Chotra, Gogunda, District Udaipur).

21. Gajesh Mewara S/o Dalpat Singh, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Mewara, R/o Sheoganj, District Sirohi. (Shop

(3 of 5) [CW-7902/2021]

No. 69, Thokar Bekeni University Road 100 Feet Road, Ward No. 45, 46, 63, 64, 65 District Udaipur).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary Finance (Revenue) Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.).

3. District Excise Officer, Jaisalmer (Raj.).

4. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur (Raj.).

5. District Excise Officer, Udaipur (Raj.).

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Girish Joshi
                               Mr. Rishab Handa
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. M.S. Singhvi, AG assisted by Mr.
                               KS Lodha.



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI

                                    Order

11/08/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the

action of the respondents of insisting the petitioners to purchase

particular brands of liquor manufactured by Rajasthan State

Ganganagar Sugar Mills (RSGSM) is contrary to the Excise and

Temperance Policy 2021-22 (for short 'the Policy'). Learned

counsel for the petitioners have submitted that as per Clause

3.1.2 of the Policy, a licensee is bound to lift or purchase 50

percent of Rajasthan Made Liquor (RML) out of 100 percent

Country Liquor (CL) Annual Guarantee and in Country Liquor 50

percent rider is for strength. It is argued that as per the above, a

licensee is only bound to purchase or lift liquor of particular

strengths and not of particular brands. It is, therefore, submitted

(4 of 5) [CW-7902/2021]

that the action of the respondents of insisting the petitioners to lift

particular brands of RSGSM is absolutely illegal and contrary to

the Policy. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed

reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in SB Civil Writ

Petition No.6496/2020 dated 16.02.2021 and argued that in the

previous year also, a similar action of the respondents was

challenged before this Court and this Court after hearing the

counsel for the parties had allowed the writ petition with a

direction not to compel the license holders to lift a particular brand

against the Policy, however, the license holders are free to lift their

choice of brand as available in the stock.

Per contra, Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General has

raised several preliminary objections regarding the maintainability

of the writ petition and has submitted that the judgment passed in

SB Civil Writ Petition No.6496/2020 dated 16.02.2021 has no

applicability in the present controversy because the issue involved

in this writ petition is different from the issue involved in that writ

petition. It is also argued that a particular clause of the Policy

cannot be taken into consideration in isolation but other provisions

of the Policy are also to be taken into consideration. Learned

Advocate General has placed reliance on Clause 3.1.6 of the policy

and has argued that as per clause 3.1.6 of the policy, upto 40

percent of the total stock of Rajasthan Made Liquor (RML) and

Country Made Liquor (CL) to be supplied to the licensee will be by

the RSGSM and the minimum of 60 percent of total supply would

be from refineries and bottling plants. It is also submitted that the

petitioners with open eyes have applied for the license of the

liquor shop and now they cannot resile back and have to take the

supply in accordance with the provisions of the Policy.

(5 of 5) [CW-7902/2021]

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of

the opinion that the matter requires consideration.

Hence, admit.

However, the purchase of the liquor by the license holders

under the policy of 2021-22 will remain subject to the decision of

this writ petition.

Notices need not be issued as the parties are already

represented by their respective counsels.

(VIJAY BISHNOI),J

47-akash/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)