Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sanju Kanwar vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24156) on 27 May, 2024
Author: Nupur Bhati
Bench: Nupur Bhati
[2024:RJ-JD:24156]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/2024
Sanju Kanwar W/o Gaganpratap Singh, Aged About 38 Years, H.
No.310, Bandaka Sara, Uttamsingh Nagar, Khirjan Khas,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Chandra Mali
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI
Order
27/05/2024
1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue
involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by the
judgment dated 10.05.2024 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench
in the case of Krishna Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan :
SBCWP No.4606/2024 and other connected matters,
whereby writ petitions have been allowed. The relevant part of the
judgment is reproduced hereunder :-
"Contention of Shri Bharat Vyas, learned AAG
that it is not permissible for the petitioners to raise any
grievance against the order dated 31.3.2024 inasmuch
as right to trade in liquor is not a fundamental right
and the State Government can always put reasonable
restrictions in it, requires not much deliberation
[2024:RJ-JD:24156] (2 of 3) [CW-7367/2024]
inasmuch, there cannot be any two views against the
proposition that not to carry on trade in liquor
especially, it not being an essential commodity, in
absence of any statutory or contractual
obligation/compulsion is the fundamental right of the
petitioners which is impinged upon vide order dated
13.3.2024. For this reason also, the order dated
13.3.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The judgement of the Constitution Bench in the
case of State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) does not
come to rescue of the respondents wherein, validity of
levy of tax on import of potable liquor manufactured in
other States was under challenge. It was held that
conduct of the respondent licensees in an attempt to
wriggle out of his contractual obligations cannot be
countenanced having fully exploited the advantage
flowing from the contract to the exclusion of the others
and having reaped rich commercial benefits from that
activity by challenging, inter alia, any particular
condition of that contract/licence. However, these
observations were made as the levy of import tax was
contemplated under the terms of the contract;
whereas, in the present cases, the facts are not
identical. As already held, the terms of the agreement
executed between the parties did not entitle the State
Government to unilaterally extend its term after expiry
by efflux of time that too with new terms and
conditions onerous to the licence holders.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the law
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of
Tata Cellular (supra) and Vivek Narayan Sharma
(supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate
General to canvass his submission that scope of judicial
review in policy matters; specially and specifically in
economic matters, is very narrow and limited.
However, the same has no applicability in the cases in
hand for the reasons; firstly, this Court is not
convinced that the order impugned dated 13.3.2024
[2024:RJ-JD:24156] (3 of 3) [CW-7367/2024]
falls within the mischief of "policy decision"; rather, it is
an administrative order issued allegedly to meet an
exigency created on account of MCC. The policy
decision is a decision laying down broad guidelines to
govern the affairs in long term based thereon beyond
running day to day affairs and the order dated
13.3.2024 fails to meet this criteria. Secondly, even
assuming it to be a policy decision, it is not sacrosanct
and beyond the reach of judicial review and deserves
to be quashed and set aside for the reasons expressed
hereinabove.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions
deserve to be allowed.
Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed. The
order impugned dated 13.3.2024 is quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to refund the
refundable dues to the petitioners within a period of
four weeks from today failing which it shall carry an
interest @ 6% per annum from today.
Office to place a copy of this judgement in each
connected file."
2. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed in the same
terms as in the case of Krishna Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan
(supra).
3. The order impugned dated 13.03.2024 is quashed and set
aside. The respondents are directed to refund the refundable dues
to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today failing
which, it shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from today.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
319-/Devesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
