Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Guddi Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 September, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:36113]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16397/2023
Smt. Guddi Meena D/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Motipura, Ward No. 2 Chhayan, Tehsil-Suhagpura
District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Commissioner,
Department Of Excise, Government Of Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
2. The District Excise Officer, Aabkari, Rajasthan, Dist.
Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhinav Jain
For Respondent(s) : -
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/09/2024
1. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and upon
perusal of the record, this Court finds that the issue involved in
the present writ petition has already been settled by the Jaipur
Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No.7543/2021 (Babu Khan vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.), vide order dated 15.09.2021 in the
following terms :-
"40. The view taken by Madras High
Court in The South India Spinner
Association & Ors. Vs. The Chairman cum
Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation
& Distribution Limited & Ors.: 2020 WritLR
510, treating the lock-down as force
[2024:RJ-JD:36113] (2 of 3) [CW-16397/2023]
majeure event, in my humble opinion,
goes contrary to the view as expressed by
the Supreme Court in Energy Watchdog
Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission & Ors and other connected
cases (supra) and the judgments cited
therein.
41. Similarly, the view taken by the
Punjab & Haryana High Court also does
not take into consideration the law as laid
down in Assistant Excise Commissioner
Vs. ISSAC Peter (supra) and in the facts
of the present cases, where the State
Government has already provided
reduction/rebate of 30% and 15%, as
above, this Court would not direct the
State Authorities to grant
reduction/rebate as prayed by the
petitioners.
42. Liquor as a business involves risks.
An entrepreneur is required to take risks
which is inevitable. Loss and profit is also
inevitable part of business. In essence,
when the petitioners took a risk to submit
their bids, they were actually taking a
gamble. When a person knows the risk
and reward relationship, it is business.
When a person accepts profit without
adequate knowledge, then it is gambling.
All the petitioners had full knowledge of
the pandemic with which the entire State
was grappling. It is with the pigeon's-eye
that they self estimated that the pandemic
has gone. Loss caused to them cannot be
put on the shoulders of the of the
Government as with the open eyes they
[2024:RJ-JD:36113] (3 of 3) [CW-16397/2023]
have submitted higher bids and accepted
the conditions of the policy. They cannot
now turn around and claim as a right from
this Court for a mandamus as against the
State.
43. Before concluding, this Court,
however, deems it appropriate to observe
that granting of rebate in making
payments is an exclusive discretion of the
State and falls within the administrative
domain of the State Government who has
laid down the excise policy. The State
Government would, therefore, be the best
to take a decision whether further
reduction/rebate is required to be granted
to the liquor vendors. Leaving it open for
the petitioners to take up their cause
before the State Government, this Court is
of the firm view that writ jurisdiction
cannot be invoked for such demands.
44. All these writ petitions are
accordingly dismissed. All
pendingapplications stand disposed of. No
costs."
2. Following the adjudication made in the case of Babu Khan
(supra), the present writ petition so also stay application stand
dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
7-raksha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
