Balkrishan vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 5566 Raj

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 5566 Raj
Judgement Date : 28 January, 2025

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Balkrishan vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 28 January, 2025

Author: Nupur Bhati

Bench: Nupur Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:5443]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16078/2022

Balkrishan S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 4 Dablivas, Molari, Dablirathan, 34 Ssw, Hanumangarh
(Raj.).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.        The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To The
          Government, Department Of Excise, Jaipur (Raj.).
2.        Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3.        District Excise Officer, Hanumangarh.
                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Shahbaz Khan
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Girish Sankhla



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

28/01/2025

1. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submits that the

controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by

the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at

Jaipur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7543/2021; Babu Khan

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected writ

petitions decided on 15.09.2021 wherein, the writ petitions were

dismissed. The relevant part of the impugned order is reproduced

hereinunder:-

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

[2025:RJ-JD:5443] (2 of 2) [CW-16078/2022]

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 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 pending applications stand disposed of. No costs.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to

refute the same.

3. Thus, the present writ petition is dismissed in the same

terms as in the case of Babu Khan (supra).

4. Stay petition as well as all pending applications, if any, also

stand dismissed.

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J surabhii/342-