Surendra Khatri vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 2274 Raj

[2023/RJJD/006706]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14934/2021

Surendra Khatri S/o Bhagwan Das, Aged About 50 Years, Pratap Circle, Udaipur Road, Dist. Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Additional Excise Commissioner, Zone Udaipur, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

4. The District Excise Officer, Banswara, Rajasthan.

5. Mr. Janmesh Jain, Licensee Of Liquor Shop Situated In Rural Area Of Sagrod (Shop Code 0301026), Circle Banswara, Excise District Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Khatri, petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate cum AAG, assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Judgment

Reserved on 16/03/2023

Pronounced on 20/03/2023

1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work, due to strike.

2. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

[2023/RJJD/006706] (2 of 6) [CW-14934/2021]

"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed and by any other appropriate writ, order or direction:

a. Quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Addl. Excise Commissioner (Annex-4); and b. By an appropriate order, writ or direction cancel the allotment made in favour of the Respondent No.5 with respect to liquor shop of Sagrod (Shop Code: 0301026), Circle Banswara, Excise District Banwara, Rajasthan and issue said shop in favour of the petitioner considering him to be H1;

c. Declare that allotment of liquor shop of Sagrod (Shop Code: 0301026), Circle Banswara, Excise District Banswara, Rajasthan. in favour of Respondent No.5 Mr. Janmesh Jain was illegal.

d. Issue such order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;"

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the

respondent-authorities vide notification dated 21.06.2021 invited

applications for allotment of liquor shops in accordance with

bidding system. The petitioner applied for a shop (Code:0301026)

situated at Sagrod Circle, Banswara with an amount of

Rs.12,94,8537/-. The respondent-authorities in the year 2021-

2022 have issued a set of term in a policy; to be eligible, a

candidate for the year 2021-2022, who is already having license,

must have cleared all the dues (in the form of any fees or license

fees), if pending till December, 2020.

3.1. The respondent-authorities vide orders dated 31.05.2021

and 09.06.2021 along with demand notice dated 01.06.2021

issued against the petitioner, raised a demand of Rs.7,52,240/-

towards Special Vend Fee (SVF) for the fourth quarter i.e.

January-March, 2021.

[2023/RJJD/006706] (3 of 6) [CW-14934/2021]

3.2. Thereafter, the District Excise Officer sent an intimation to

the Additional Excise Commissioner, vide letter dated 01.07.2021

to debar the petitioner from allotment of liquor shop for the year

2021-22. The Additional Excise Commissioner, Udaipur Zone vide

the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 (Annex.4) debarred the

petitioner from allotment of liquor shop, on couint of the aforesaid

demand and considering the application of respondent no.5 - Mr.

Janmesh Jain H2, as a Second highest bidder for the year 2021-

2022.

4. Mr. Surendra Khatri petitioner in person submitted that the

respondent-authorities have acted in utter violation and disregard

to the prescriptions of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956

(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1956') and Rajasthan Excise

Policy for the year 2021-22. He further submitted that the

respondent-authorities have intentionally debarred the petitioner,

despite being the highest bidder (H1) in the allotment process in

question, even when there were no pending dues on the part of

the petitioner.

5. The petitioner in person also submitted that the respondent-

authorities passed the impugned order without following the due

process of law and without following the principles of natural

justice. He further submitted that the impugned action of the

respondent-authorities clearly reveals a legal malice, forbidden

under the law.

6. In support of his submissions, the petitioner in person relied

upon the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

cases of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander

Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 997 and Kalabharati

[2023/RJJD/006706] (4 of 6) [CW-14934/2021]

Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR

2010 SC 3745.

7. On other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel &

Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for the

respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made by the

petitioner in person, and submitted that vide clause 1 sub-clause

(vi) of the policy of the year 2021-22 itself, it was made amply

clear that any person ineligible for grant of license under the Rules

of 1956, shall be ineligible to apply for the license under the

Excise Policy 2021-22.

7.1 As far as clause 1 sub-clause (iv) is concerned, he submitted

that the duration of a liquor shop license is 1 st April to 31st March

i.e. financial year, and the auction was held only on 30.06.2021

after the completion of license period of the year 2020-21; thus

the dues for the months of January, February and March, 2021 are

also required to be considered to adjudge eligibility of the bidder,

as per the aforesaid clause.

8. Learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General

further submitted that the as per Rule 63 of the Rules of 1956,

any former licensee, whose payment, towards payment of excise

revenue, is due to the Government, shall be debarred from the

fresh bidding.

9. Learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General also

submitted that on count of the interim order dated 05.03.2022

passed by this Hon'ble Court in the present case, the

auction/renewal of the liquor shop in question remained in

abeyance for the year 2022-23, causing huge loss to the State

Exchequer. He further submitted that the petitioner filed a

[2023/RJJD/006706] (5 of 6) [CW-14934/2021]

separate petition against the auction proceeding before this

Hon'ble Court, which is still pending, and therefore this petition

deserves dismissal.

10. Heard the petitioner present in person as well as learned

Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General, and perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

11. This Court finds that the respondent-authorities issued e-

bidding notifications dated 21.06.2021 and 06.07.2021 for

allotment of liquor shops in State of Rajasthan for the year 2021-

2022; after completion of the application process, the

respondent-authorities allotted the liquor shop to respondent no.5,

while considering him to be the second highest bidder. Though the

petitioner was the first highest bidder, but due to non-payments of

the dues towards such allotment, the respondent-authorities

debarred the petitioner from the same, vide the impugned order.

12. This Court further finds that as per the clause 1 sub-clause

(iv) of Excise Policy for the year 2021-22 and Rules of 1956, the

person, whose payment of previous financial year is due, is

ineligible for allotment of the liquor shop. As per the record, the

petitioner was ineligible to participate in the auction proceeding of

liquor shop for the year 2021-22 due to non-payment of the dues

of the last financial year.

13. This Court also finds that the Excise Policy itself mentioned

the condition that there shall be no dues till December 2020, but

the said condition can only be applicable in the cases, where

auction is undertaken prior to completion of the contract period. In

present case, the auction was held on 30.06.2021 i.e. much after

[2023/RJJD/006706] (6 of 6) [CW-14934/2021]

completion of the license period of 2020-21. Therefore, the

petitioner was not eligible for allotment of liquor shop in question.

14. The judgments cited by the petitioner in person do not

render any assistance to his case.

15. In light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the

factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit

case so as to grant any relief to the present petitioner.

16. This Court is conscious of the fact brought to its notice that

the subsequent process of current period has already been

challenged in a fresh writ petition filed by the petitioner.

17. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. However, the

petitioner shall be at liberty to raise all his legal issues and lawful

grounds, if any, in regard to auction of liquor shop in question in

the petition, which, as informed by the learned Senior Counsel &

Additional Advocate General, is pending consideration before this

Hon'ble Court. The stay application is dismissed. Other pending

applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

Skant/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)