[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shakti vs The State Of Rajasthan on 9 April, 2026
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 401/2026
Shakti W/o Shri Raman, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of Ward
No. 2, Indira Colony, Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Appellant
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Excise Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Excise Commissioner, Abkari Bhawan, Udaipur (Raj.).
3. District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
4. Purushotam Dass S/o Shri Kainthli Ram, Resident Of
House No. 57- B Block, Padampur, District Sri
Ganganagar And License Holder Of Shop Code 1306050
Shop No. 61, Dhan Mandi, Padampur District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himmat Jaga
Ms. Taniya Chugh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi AAG assisted by
Ms. Navya Sharma
Mr. P.K. Rawla for R-4
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
Reportable
Date of Conclusion of Arguments : 02/04/2026
Date on which Order is Reserved : 02/04/2026
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (2 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
Full Order or Operative Part : Full Order
Date of Pronouncement : 07/04/2026
By the Court-(Per Hon'ble MR. FARJAND ALI,J.)
Grievance of the Case
1. The instant Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been instituted by
the appellant assailing the proceedings arising out of denial of
renewal of excise licence and the consequential allotment of the
shop in question in favour of respondent No. 4.
Factual Background
2. The appellant is an excise licensee holding Shop Code No.
1306051 for Wards No. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of Padampur. It
is averred that due to technical glitches in the server maintained
by the Excise Department, several licensees, including the
appellant, were unable to fulfill the guarantee requirements for the
month of September, 2025.
2.1. Despite absence of any attributable fault, the respondents,
vide order dated 30.10.2025, sought to impose a penal condition
requiring such licensees to lift 1.5 times the quantity of liquor
equivalent to the alleged deficiency.
2.2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 23713/2025 (Shakti vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.),
wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated
06.12.2025, issued notices and restrained the respondents from
taking coercive action.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (3 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
2.3. Subsequently, the appellant attempted renewal of the licence
on multiple occasions in February, 2026; however, the system
declined renewal citing outstanding dues, which were fluctuating
and inconsistent in nature.
2.4. In the interregnum, the respondents proceeded to entertain
applications for allotment and, vide proceedings dated
17.02.2026, allotted the shop in question in favour of respondent
No. 4. Aggrieved by the said subsequent development, the
appellant instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6202/2026 along
with a stay application. In the said proceedings, the learned Single
Judge, vide order dated 24.03.2026, while issuing notice as well
as notice of the stay application and granting time to the
respondents to file reply, directed that the allotment so made shall
remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, thereby
keeping the rights and contentions of the parties open for
adjudication.
Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged
default for September, 2025 arose solely due to technical glitches
in the Excise Department's server, and no fault can be attributed
to the appellant. Despite this, the respondents imposed an
onerous and arbitrary condition vide order dated 30.10.2025,
compelling licensees to lift 1.5 times the liquor quantity.
3.1. It is contended that this action was challenged in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 23713/2025, wherein this Court, vide order dated
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (4 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
06.12.2025, granted protection against coercive action. The
respondents, however, have indirectly defeated the said protection
by denying renewal of licence.
3.2. Counsel further submits that the appellant made bona fide
attempts to renew the licence within time, but the same was
declined due to fluctuating and inconsistent demands reflected in
the system, demonstrating arbitrariness.
3.3. It is also urged that despite being informed of the interim
order, the respondents insisted upon deposit of the disputed
amount. The subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No. 4,
during pendency of the writ petition, is stated to be illegal and
prejudicial to the appellant's rights.
Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the interim protection granted by this Court was limited only to
the dues of September, 2025 and did not extend to subsequent
defaults.
4.1. It is contended that the appellant remained in continuous
arrears for later periods, and despite notice dated 04.12.2025,
failed to clear outstanding dues. Such default is stated to be
willful, disentitling the appellant from equitable relief.
4.2. Reliance is placed on Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules,
1956 read with Clause 2.8 of the Excise Policy 2025-29, which
mandates that a licensee with outstanding arrears is ineligible for
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (5 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
renewal. It is thus submitted that denial of renewal was a
statutory consequence, and upon such disqualification, the shop
was lawfully allotted to respondent No. 4 through due process. No
enforceable right, therefore, survives in favour of the appellant.
Consideration and Findings
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as
learned counsel appearing for the respondents at considerable
length and have carefully perused the material available on
record, including the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in
the pending writ proceedings.
6. Upon thoughtful consideration of the rival submissions, this
Court finds that the entire edifice of the present intra-court appeal
is founded upon issues which are not only substantially
overlapping but are, in fact, directly and integrally embedded in
the subject matter of the writ petitions already pending
adjudication before the learned Single Judge. The challenge laid in
the present appeal, though couched in a different form, essentially
seeks to invite this Court to examine the very same questions
which are sub judice in the writ petition as well as in the stay
application filed therein.
6.1. It is not in dispute that in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
23713/2025, the learned Single Judge has already taken
cognizance of the grievance relating to the alleged arbitrary
demand arising out of the technical glitch and has granted interim
protection by restraining coercive action. Subsequently, in S.B.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
Civil Writ Petition No. 6202/2026, wherein the consequential
allotment in favour of respondent No. 4 has been assailed, the
learned Single Judge, while issuing notice, has consciously
exercised discretion to direct that such allotment shall remain
subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
6.2. The aforesaid orders clearly demonstrate that the learned
Single Judge is already seized of the entire controversy, including
the legality of the demand, the effect of the earlier interim
protection, the validity of denial of renewal, and the consequential
allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4. Not only the writ
petitions, but even the interlocutory aspect in the form of stay
application is presently pending consideration before the writ
court.
I. Judicial Discipline and Primacy of the Court of First
Instance
6.3. At this juncture, it becomes imperative to underscore a
fundamental principle governing intra-court appellate jurisdiction,
namely, that where the court of first instance is actively seized of
a matter and has exercised its discretionary jurisdiction after
hearing the parties, the appellate forum ought to exercise a high
degree of judicial restraint. The scheme of adjudication postulates
that issues must, in the first instance, be examined, appreciated
and determined by the court before which they are originally
instituted.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
6.4. The propriety of judicial process demands that the appellate
forum does not pre-empt such adjudication by undertaking an
examination of issues which are yet to be conclusively determined
by the learned Single Judge. Any such exercise would not only
disturb the hierarchical discipline of courts but would also render
the proceedings before the writ court otiose.
II. Limits on Appellate Interference with Discretionary
Orders
6.5. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the Division Bench in
an intra-court appeal, particularly against interim or discretionary
orders, is circumscribed. Interference is warranted only in
exceptional situations where the order under challenge is shown to
be patently illegal, manifestly arbitrary, perverse, or suffering from
jurisdictional error.
6.6. In the present case, the ad interim measure adopted by the
learned Single Judge is a matter squarely falling within the realm
of judicial discretion, exercised in a balanced and equitable
manner so as to safeguard the competing interests of the parties
at the interlocutory stage. This Court is, therefore, not inclined to
interfere with such discretionary exercise.
It is further to be noted that the relief which is presently sought
by the appellant in the instant intra-court appeal continues to
remain open for consideration before the learned Single Judge.
The proceedings before the writ court are still at a nascent stage,
wherein notices have only been issued to the respondent parties,
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
and they have not yet been afforded an opportunity of being
heard on merits. The principles of natural justice mandate that all
affected parties must be granted adequate opportunity to present
their case before any conclusive view is taken.
Upon completion of pleadings and after hearing all concerned
parties, it is always open to the learned Single Judge to revisit,
broaden, modify, or even vacate the interim arrangement,
depending upon the merits of the case and the material placed on
record. Thus, the interim order presently operating cannot be said
to have attained any degree of finality so as to invite appellate
scrutiny at this stage.
Significantly, the relief as prayed for by the appellant has not been
expressly declined by the learned Single Judge. In absence of any
categorical refusal, it would be premature for the appellant to
invoke the appellate jurisdiction of this Court for grant of such
relief. The settled position of law is that unless a prayer has been
considered and rejected by the court of first instance, the same
cannot ordinarily be agitated before the appellate forum.
Entertaining such a plea at this juncture would, in effect, amount
to permitting the appellant to seek, for the first time, substantive
relief directly before the appellate court, bypassing the
adjudicatory process before the original forum. Such a course is
neither procedurally permissible nor consistent with the well-
established principles governing appellate jurisdiction. The issues
raised by the appellant must, therefore, be allowed to be first
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (9 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
examined and determined by the learned Single Judge in
accordance with law.
6.7. This Court does not find the exercise of discretion by the
learned Single Judge to be suffering from any patent illegality or
unreasonableness so as to warrant interference at this stage.
III. Impermissibility of Pre-Adjudication by Appellate
Forum
6.8. The submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant, if
examined on merits, would necessarily require this Court to
adjudicate upon issues such as:
• Whether the demand raised by the respondents is justified;
• Whether the appellant was in default and to what extent;
• Whether the interim protection granted earlier enures to the
benefit of the appellant in the present context;
• Whether the denial of renewal and subsequent allotment are
legally sustainable.
6.9. All these issues form the very core of the writ petitions
pending before the learned Single Judge. Any determination by
this Court on these aspects would amount to virtually deciding the
writ petition itself.
6.10. Such an approach would be wholly impermissible, for the
reason that once the appellate forum renders findings on these
issues, the proceedings before the writ court would stand
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (10 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
substantially foreclosed or "stifled", leaving little or no scope for an
independent adjudication by the learned Single Judge.
6.11. Judicial propriety thus mandates that this Court refrains
from expressing any opinion, directly or indirectly, on the merits of
the controversy, lest it prejudices or influences the adjudication
pending before the court of first instance.
IV. Adequacy of Protection Granted by the Writ Court
6.12. It is also significant to note that the learned Single Judge
has already safeguarded the interests of the parties by directing
that the allotment made in favour of respondent No. 4 shall
remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. This
protective arrangement ensures that no irreversible situation is
created and that the rights of the appellant, if ultimately found to
be meritorious, can be suitably restored.
At this juncture, it also merits emphatic reiteration that the stay
application in the writ proceedings is still pending consideration
before the learned Single Judge, who, upon hearing both the
parties, is yet to take a definitive view in the matter. The grounds
raised before this Court are also kept open for the petitioner to be
urged before the learned Single Judge in the pending stay
application. In such a situation, for the appellate forum to render
any observation touching upon the merits, whether directly or
even by necessary implication,would run contrary to the well-
entrenched principles of judicial propriety and institutional
discipline. The doctrine of judicial restraint, deeply embedded in
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (11 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
common law jurisprudence, mandates that a superior forum must
refrain from pre-empting an issue which is actively sub judice
before the court of first instance. The maxim "actus curiae
neminem gravabit" (an act of the court shall prejudice no one)
and the broader principle underlying sub judice doctrine both
militate against any such premature adjudication. Equally apposite
is the salutary principle that an appellate court ought not to
render a decision in a manner that would have the effect of
"stifling" or rendering otiose the proceedings pending before the
court below. If this Court were to enter into the merits at this
stage, it would virtually denude the learned Single Judge of the
opportunity to independently examine and adjudicate the issues
raised, thereby reducing the proceedings before the writ court to a
mere formality. Such an approach is neither permissible in law nor
persuadable on principles of sound judicial administration. The
hierarchy of courts is structured on the foundational premise that
issues must first receive a full and fair consideration at the original
forum, and any deviation therefrom would be antithetical to the
discipline of appellate review.
6.13. In view of the aforesaid position, particularly the pendency
of the stay application and the comprehensive seisin of the
learned Single Judge over all facets of the controversy, this Court
is of the considered opinion that no case for appellate interference
is made out at this stage. Any indulgence by this Court would not
only amount to pre-judging issues awaiting determination before
the writ court, but would also risk unsettling the balanced interim
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (12 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
arrangement already put in place. Judicial discipline, therefore,
warrants that the parties be relegated to pursue their remedies
before the learned Single Judge, who shall, upon due
consideration of the rival submissions, pass appropriate orders on
the stay application as well as the writ petition in accordance with
law.
V. Liberty to Agitate Issues Before the Writ Court
6.14. Needless to observe, all the issues sought to be raised in the
present appeal remain open for the appellant to be urged before
the learned Single Judge. The appellant shall be at liberty to press
all grounds, both on facts and in law, in the pending writ petition
as well as the stay application, which shall be considered on their
own merits.
Conclusion
7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that:
• The controversy raised in the present appeal is already sub
judice before the learned Single Judge;
• The learned Single Judge has exercised discretion and has
granted appropriate interim protection;
• No case of patent illegality, perversity or arbitrariness is
made out;
• Any interference at this stage would amount to premature
adjudication and would undermine judicial propriety.
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15892-DB] (13 of 13) [SAW-401/2026]
• The order impugned being purely ad interim in nature, the
appellant retains an efficacious remedy before the learned
Single Judge, where the stay application is still pending
consideration and the interim arrangement is amenable to
modification, variation or vacation upon hearing all parties;
thus, the substantive relief presently sought in this appeal
continues to remain open and can appropriately be agitated
before the writ court.
8. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
order impugned in the present intra-court appeal at this stage.
9. The present Civil Special Appeal (Writ) is, accordingly,
dismissed.
9.1. It is, however, clarified that the learned Single Judge shall
decide the writ petitions as well as the pending stay application
independently, in accordance with law, and without being
influenced by any observations made herein.
9.2. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (FARJAND ALI),J
13-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 09:06:15 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
