The State Of Rajasthan vs Nagji Ram (2023/Rjjd/005873)
2023 Latest Caselaw 1825 Raj

[2023/RJJD/005873]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 401/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Vachana Ram S/o Sava Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Sarnau, Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 390/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise) , Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Gita Kanvar W/o Bhagwat Das, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Mukhya Abadi Chota, Bhuwana, Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 391/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Sumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Rajudan S/o Bhmar Dan, Aged About 21 Years, Village B 39, Shree Mahavir Chsl Ratan Nagar, Dashisar, East, Mumbai. At Present Residing At Bhuwana, Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 392/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

[2023/RJJD/005873] (2 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus

1. Sanju Pareek W/o Subhash Pareek, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Main Bazar, Lambiya, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali (Rajasthan).

2. Arti D/o Mitha Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 402/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Ansi Devi W/o Vachana Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vpo Sarnau, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Respondent

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 403/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Vijay Singh S/o Rawat Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 217, Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Sabalpura, District Sikar, At Present Sanchore, District Jalore.

----Respondent

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 404/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/005873] (3 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Ganpat Lal S/o Chaggan Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Thakurji Ka Mandir Vpo Dabal, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 406/2021

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).

----Appellants Versus Nagji Ram S/o Kala Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Jalera Khurd, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore.

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with Mr. Nishan Bapna.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi.

Ms. Suchana Kumari.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment

17/02/2023

These special appeals are directed against the order dated

06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ

petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners were allowed and the

respondents were directed to give relaxation of proportionate

composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners.

The writ petitions were filed by the respondents-petitioners

with the submissions that they were allottees / license-holders of

liquor shops for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The

[2023/RJJD/005873] (4 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

petitioners deposited the license / composite fees (lump sum

amount) and Advanced Exclusive Privilege Amount as per the

Rules and the terms of license. It is claimed that the respondent

department delivered the country liquor to the petitioners on

04.05.2020 though the tenure of the allotted shops started from

01.04.2020 on account of the fact that the country was suffering

from COVID Pandemic and Government of India & State of

Rajasthan had ordered for closure of all the liquor shops all over

the country from 01.04.2020 to 04.05.2020.

Submissions were made that as the previous allottees /

license-holders for the year 2019-20 were granted relaxation for

the composite fee by the State by its Circular dated 07.04.2020,

looking to the fact that there was lock-down for the period

01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020, the State should have provided

relaxation in the composite fee for a period of 34 days,

proportionately.

The petitions were contested by the respondents on the

ground that as per the detailed guidelines & instructions, under

which the licenses were allotted, the petitioners were not entitled

for any relaxation / compensation for the period the shops

remained closed from 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020. Reliance in this

regard was placed on Clause 7.3 of the Standard License

Conditions.

The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, while

taking note of the extra-ordinary circumstances prevailing in the

country due to COVID-19 and the fact that the lock-down was

imposed, inter-alia, for the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020,

[2023/RJJD/005873] (5 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

which circumstances were unusual and akin to force majeure

found it a fit case for invoking the writ jurisdiction.

Learned Single Judge further observed that the State itself

had granted such proportionate relief in the composite fee for the

year 2019-20 for the period when lock-down was in existence i.e.

from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 and consequently, allowed the

petitions and directed the respondents to give relaxation for

proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the

petitioners.

Learned AAG made submissions that the fundamental basis

for grant of relief by the learned Single Judge pertained to the fact

that the State itself had granted relief in the composite fee for the

year 2019-20, for the period when lock-down was in existence i.e.

from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 and therefore, it ought to have

extended the same relaxation in the composite fee to the

petitioners also, which determination is contrary to the relaxation,

which was granted by the State vide Circular dated 07.04.2020.

It is submitted that the Circular dated 07.04.2020, which

was filed as Annex.-R/1 in the writ petition, only provided for

relaxation for the period 2019-20 in Exclusive Privilege Amount &

Special Vend Fee and for the year 2020-21 also, the same was

confined to Exclusive Privilege Amount & Special Vend Fee and as

such, there was no difference between the relaxation provided for

the years 2019-20 & 2020-21 and therefore, such, passing of the

order on the said basis is wholly unjustified.

Submissions were also made that further ground indicated

on account of the lock-down during the period 01.04.2020 to

03.05.2020 for the purpose of grant of relief also is contrary to the

[2023/RJJD/005873] (6 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

Standard License Conditions, which specifically provided that any

order passed in keeping the shops closed for any special reason,

the licensee would not be entitled to any relaxation /

compensation and as the respondents had entered into the

contract with open eyes aware of the said clause, the grant of

relief in composite fee for 34 days is not justified.

Submissions have also been made that merely because the

State in its wisdom thought it appropriate to grant relaxation in

the amount of Exclusive Privilege and Special Vend Fee, cannot be

a reason enough to also grant relaxation in the composite fee and

therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge

deserves to be quashed and set-aside.

Reliance in this regard has been placed on Order in Satveer

Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.10936/2020 and other connected matters, decided on

08.12.2020 (At Jaipur Bench) and Smt. Renu v. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4470/2020, decided

on 17.02.2021, which order was upheld in Smt. Renu v. State of

Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.218/2021,

decided on 09.09.2021.

Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order

impugned.

It was submitted that once the State had granted the

relaxation in the amount of Exclusive Privilege and Special Vend

Fee, there was no reason not to provide the said relaxation in

composite fee and therefore, the order impugned passed by the

learned Single Judge is justified and the same does not call for

any interference.

[2023/RJJD/005873] (7 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

The learned Single Judge, while ordering for grant of

relaxation for proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days

to the petitioners, was swayed by the fact that there was lock-

down during the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020 and that the

State itself had granted such proportionate relief in the composite

fee for the year 2019-20 on account of such lock-down for the

period from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020.

The Excise Policy has been filed as Annex.-A/1 with the

additional affidavit in the present special appeals, inter-alia,

provided for application fee, exclusive privilege amount, security

amount, composite shops, determination of composite fee, which

was to be deposited by 31.03.2020. Under Clause 7 of the

Standard License Conditions, which clearly dealt with operation of

the shops, their timings and other conditions, wherein Clause 7.3

specifically provided that the State Government, Excise

Commissioner or the Licensing Authority for special reason could

order for keeping the shop closed and in such circumstances, the

licensee could not be entitled for any compensation nor there will

be any relaxation in the payable amount.

The Division Bench in the case of Satveer Chaudhary

(supra), wherein the challenge was laid to the notice / penalty

orders passed by the District Excise Officer in both the category of

matters i.e. Retail Off Vend matters and composite license

matters, wherein the petitioners had sought for consequential

reduction in the Basic License Fees, inter-alia, due to COVID-19

[2023/RJJD/005873] (8 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

after noticing the contentions of the parties, inter-alia, came to

the conclusion that the petitioners having entered into the

contract with open eyes, cannot now challenge the terms of

contract under the writ jurisdiction and consequently, dismissed

the writ petitions.

In the case of Smt. Renu (supra), wherein also re-

determination of Exclusive Privilege Amount and composite fee

was sought by the petitioners on account of COVID-19 outbreak,

the learned Single Judge referring to the judgment in the case of

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. M/s C.K.M. & Company : D.B. Civil

Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2017, decided on 10.05.2017,

dismissed the writ petition, which was upheld by the Division

Bench in the case of Smt. Renu (supra), as such, the

determination made by the learned Single Judge on account of the

shops remaining closed due to lock-down cannot be sustained.

Further, in the present case, as noticed, the learned Single

Judge relied on the fact that such relaxation in the composite fee

was granted for the year 2019-20 and as such, there was no

reason for not granting the same for the year 2020-21 granted the

relief.

The Circular dated 07.04.2020 (Annex.R/1), inter-alia,

provided as under :-

"¼2½ o'kZ 2019&20 ds dEiksftV] ns"kh efnjk lewg o vaxzsth "kjkc ds vuqKk/kkjh& ykWdMkmu vof/k 22 ekpZ ls 31 ekpZ] 2020 rd dh vof/k ds ekg ekpZ] 2020 ds fy;s ,dkdh fo"ks'kkf/kdkj jkf"k esa vkuqikfrd NwV nh tkrh gS ,oa lkFk gh Lis"ky os.M Qhl de mBko dh iSuYVh esa ekg ekpZ esa vkuqikfrd NwV nh tkrh gSA ¼3½ o'kZ 2020&21 ds efnjk vuqKk/kkjh & • ekfld fo"ks'kkf/kdkj jkf"k o Lis"ky os.M Qhl dh de mBko dh isuYVh dk ekg vizsy] 2020 ds fy;s ykWdMkmu vof/k esa vkuqikfrd NwV nh tkrh gSA

[2023/RJJD/005873] (9 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]

• o'kZ 2020&21 ds lQy vkosndksa }kjk tks jkf"k fnukad 31-03-

2020 rd tek ugha djk;h x;h mudks ykWdMkmu lekIr gksus dh fnukad ls rhu fnol ds Hkhrj cdk;k Hkqxrku tek djkus dh NwV nh tkrh gSA"

(emphasis supplied)

A bare perusal of the above would reveal that for the year

2019-20, the relaxation was granted in amount of Exclusive

Privilege and Special Vend Fee only and similarly, for the year

2020-21 also, similar relief was granted by the State and as such,

apparently, the determination made by the learned Single Judge,

based on alleged relaxation in 'composite fee' for the period 2019-

20 apparently is on account of misreading of the communication

dated 07.04.2020 (Annex.R/1), which cannot be sustained.

In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the

learned Single Judge directing grant of relaxation in proportionate

composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners cannot be

sustained.

Consequently, the special appeals are allowed. The orders

dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge are set-

aside. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.

No order as to costs.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J 23 to 30-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)