Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kavita Gangwani vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 May, 2023
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2023/RJJD/013185]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2938/2020
Kavita Gangwani W/o Shri Amit Kumar Gangwani, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of 54/1, Subhash Chowk, Ratanada, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur.
3. The District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Jaya Bhandari
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Sankhla
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
03/05/2023
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue
involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 04.04.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this
Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in 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- 21,
petitioners were required to sell a particular quantity of IMFL/Beer
and in case of shortlifting, they were required to pay the amount
[2023/RJJD/013185] (2 of 3) [CW-2938/2020]
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.
[2023/RJJD/013185] (3 of 3) [CW-2938/2020]
34. The basis for challenge in this case is that the Excise Policy
2020-21 is contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution of 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. In light of the aforequoted order, the instant writ petition is
dismissed in the same terms. All pending applications also stand
disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
41-amit/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
