Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rekha Teli vs State Of Rajasthan on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Nupur Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12850/2020
Rekha Teli W/o Harish Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Teli, R/o
Shrimaliyo Ki Madadi, Gogunda, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
4. Rajasthan State Beverage Corporation Ltd, Through
Secretary, D Block, Vitta Bhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Handa for
Mr. Girish Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish K. Sankhla
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
22/08/2023
1. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 04.04.2023, passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench
at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur, in the case of Satveer Chaudhary Vs.
State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.10936/2020 and other connected writ petitions. The relevant
portion of the order reads as under:-
"29. We have considered the contentions,
30. Admittedly, petitioners have entered into a contract and
as per the terms and conditions of the license, they are required
to follow the conditions imposed by the respondent and the terms
of the Excise Policy. As per the terms of the Excise Policy 2020-
(2 of 3) [CW-12850/2020]
21, petitioners were required to sell a particular quantity of IMFL/
Beer and in case of shortlifting, they were required to pay the
amount as Additional Minimum Special Vend Fees. Further, they
were required to sell 10% more than the last year's quantity.
Petitioners have entered into the contract with open eyes and
now, they cannot challenge the terms of the Excise Policy 2020-
21, on the ground that the clauses are contrary to Article 47 of
the Constitution of India and against the objects of the Excise
Policy.
31. It is a clear case of the respondent that they are duty
bound to supply good quality product to the consumers and if
restrictions are not imposed, there would be illegal transportation
of liquor in the State and bad quality product would find place in
the market and would cause revenue loss as well to the
Government.
32. The Excise Policy for the year 2015-16 was challenged
before the Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Abhishek Jaiswal
vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.948/2016)." The matter pertained to shortlifting of IMFL/Beer.
Division Bench held that charging of Additional Vend Fees on
account of shortlifting of IMFL/Beer, cannot be said to be a tax or
penalty and the same is supported by Subordinate Legislation.
33. In the case of "Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy
Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 1121),
Apex Court has held that in a concluded contract, Writ Petition is
not an appropriate remedy for impeaching contractual obligations.
In, "State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/S C.K.M. & Company (D.B.
Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2007)" there was condition in
the agreement that any kind of stoppage of mining operations
shall not have any bearing or impact upon the recovery of royalty.
The Writ Petitioners in that case had entered into an agreement
for collection of royalty which contained the aforesaid language of
absolute liability irrespective of the status of the mining
operations. The Court observed that in those circumstances, no
relief could have been granted to the petitioners as the law of
equity, without any basis, cannot override specific conditions in
the contract: In the present case in hand also, petitioners have
entered into a contract, wherein, they have agreed to pay
Additional Special Vend Fees for shortlifting and the same cannot
be challenged in the Writ Jurisdiction.
34. The basis for challenge in this case is that the Excise
Policy 2020-21 is contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution of
(3 of 3) [CW-12850/2020]
India. Article 47 of the Constitution of India deals with the
Directive Principles of State Policy. The State is bound to raise the
level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public
health. As per the reply submitted by the State, State wants to
provide good quality liquor to the consumers and to avoid
pilfering of liquor from other States, which may not be quality
product, State has put these conditions in the Excise Policy,
hence, the same cannot be said to be violative of Article 47 of the
Constitution of India.
35. Petitioners having entered into the contract with open
eyes, cannot now challenge the terms of the contract under the
Writ Jurisdiction. There are as many as 5543 groups and number
of shops are 6665. The number of IMFL shops are 1000. Out of so
many number of groups/shops, only the present petitioners have
approached the Court.
36. It is further evident that the petitioners have not come
with clean hands, as suitable relaxation and rebates were given
by the State to the petitioners which have not been mentioned in
the Writ Petitions and interim order has been obtained from the
Hon'ble Court by concealing the material facts.
37. In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the
present Civil Writ Petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed.
38. Copy of this order be placed in the connected files."
2. Learned counsel representing the petitioner is not in a
position to refute the same.
3. In light of the aforequoted order i.e. Satveer Chaudhary
Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), the instant writ petition
is dismissed in the same terms. Stay application as well as all
other pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
252-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
