Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ragini Kackkar vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 January, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8547/2021
1. Ragini Kackkar W/o Ankur Kakkar, Aged About 41 Years,
43 Ashok Nagar Pal Link Road, Jodhpur, License Holder Of
Shop No. 3, From Mdm Road Crossroad To Bhaskar
Karlaya Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur.
2. Ruchit Talwar S/o Harish Talwar, Aged About 29 Years, A-
53 Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, License Holder Of Shop No. 2
From Jalori Gate To Aakhilya Circle Jodhpur.
3. Priyanka Modi D/o Vijay Kumar Modi, Aged About 29
Years, Suraj Villa B-11 Roop Nagar, Jalor, License Holder
Of Shop No. 4 From Jalori Gate To Aakhilya Circle,
Jodhpur.
4. Sunil Talwar S/o Late Jagdish Lal Talwar, Aged About 58
Years, A-53 Shastri Nagar, Jodhpur, License Holder Of
Shop No. 1 From Mohanpura Puliya To Merti Gate,
Jodhpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance
(Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Janpath, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi assisted by
Mr. Chandraveer Singh, through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted by
Ms. Akshiti Singhvi, through VC
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
06/01/2022
(2 of 3) [CW-8547/2021]
1. Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned AAG, assisted by Ms. Akshiti
Singhvi, appearing for the State submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition is squarely covered by judgment dated
27.08.2021 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by
SBCWP No.7543/2021 (Babu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners are not in a position to
dispute the aforesaid positions of facts and law.
3. In the case of Babu Khan (supra), this Court has held thus:
"42. Liquor as a business involves risks. An
entrepreneur is required to take risks which is
inevitable. Loss and profit is also inevitable part of
business. In essence, when the petitioners took
a risk to submit their bids, they were actually
taking a gamble. When a person knows the risk
and reward relationship, it is business. When a
person accepts profit without adequate
knowledge, then it is gambling. All the petitioners
had full knowledge of the pandemic with which the
entire State was grappling. It is with the pigeon's-
eye that they self estimated that the pandemic has
gone. Loss caused to them cannot be put on the
shoulders of the of the Government as with the
open eyes they have submitted higher bids and
accepted the conditions of the policy. They cannot
now turn around and claim as a right from this
Court for a mandamus as against the State.
43. Before concluding, this Court, however, deems
it appropriate to observe that granting of rebate in
making payments is an exclusive discretion of the
State and falls within the administrative
domain of the State Government who has laid
down the excise policy. The State Government
would, therefore, be the best to take a decision
whether further reduction/rebate is required to be
(3 of 3) [CW-8547/2021]
granted to the liquor vendors. Leaving it open for
the petitioners to take up their cause before the
State Government, this Court is of the firm view
that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for such
demands."
4. Following the judgment in case of Babu Khan (supra), the
present writ petition is dismissed.
5. Stay application also stands disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
82-pooja/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
