[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Om Prakash Suhalka vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 April, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:15321]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23078/2025
Om Prakash Suhalka S/o Shri Ganga Ram Ji Suhalka, Aged
About 55 Years, R/o 1052, Uttari Aayad, Udaipur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rajasthan,
Excise Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan Excise Department,
Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The District Excise Officer, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. The District Collector, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on: 02/04/2026
Pronounced on: 16/04/2026
1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India laying challenge to the order dated
02.05.2025 passed by the District Excise Officer, Udaipur
cancelling the approved location of Shop No. 27 in Cluster No. 91
allotted to the petitioner, the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by
the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, and the subsequent notice
dated 03.11.2025 issued pursuant thereto.
2. The petitioner participated in the e-auction process
conducted pursuant to the Excise Policy 2025-29 and was
declared a successful bidder for Cluster No. 91 comprising, inter
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (2 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
alia, Shop No. 27. Upon allotment, the petitioner identified a
location for establishment of Shop No. 27, obtained consent from
the landlord, and uploaded the details on the departmental portal.
The said location was thereafter verified through the prescribed
mechanism and came to be approved by the competent authority.
3. Subsequently, a complaint was made by another licensee of
an adjoining cluster alleging that the petitioner's shop was
situated at or near the location of Shop No. 31 of Cluster No. 92,
thereby affecting business interests and resulting in unhealthy
competition. Acting on such complaint, the District Excise Officer
initially cancelled the approved location without affording
opportunity of hearing.
4. During pendency of proceedings before the appellate
authority as well as a civil suit, a fresh show cause notice dated
17.04.2025 was issued and ultimately, the District Excise Officer
passed the order dated 02.05.2025 cancelling the location of the
petitioner's shop.
5. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the earlier
cancellation order culminated in dismissal, which led to filing of a
writ petition before this Court. The Coordinate Bench, vide order
dated 29.07.2025, set aside the earlier orders and granted liberty
to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 02.05.2025 before
the appellate authority with a direction to decide the appeal on
merits.
6. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner preferred an appeal;
however, the appellate authority, vide order dated 13.10.2025,
instead of deciding the appeal finally, remanded the matter back
to the District Excise Officer for reconsideration. Consequent
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (3 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
thereto, a fresh notice dated 03.11.2025 came to be issued, and
during pendency of the present writ petition, further proceedings
were undertaken by the original authority.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
action of the respondents is ex facie arbitrary, unjustified and
contrary to the Excise Policy 2025-29. It is contended that the
petitioner, after being declared a successful bidder, identified the
location strictly within the notified area, obtained consent of the
landlord, and the same was duly verified and approved by the
competent authority after physical inspection. Once such approval
was granted after due application of mind, the respondents could
not have cancelled the same in absence of any allegation or proof
of misrepresentation or violation of any policy condition thereto.
8. Learned counsel further submits that the entire basis of the
impugned order dated 02.05.2025 is factually incorrect inasmuch
as the finding that Shop No. 27 of the petitioner is situated at the
same location as Shop No. 31 of another cluster is demonstrably
erroneous. It is urged that both shops are situated in different
premises having distinct ownership and tenancy arrangements,
which is evident from the record itself. The conclusion drawn by
the District Excise Officer, Udaipur is thus based on incorrect
assumptions and reflects total non-application of mind.
9. Learned counsel further submits that the ground of
"unhealthy competition" as mentioned in the impugned order is
vague, undefined and dehors the policy framework. It is argued
that the Excise Policy does not prescribe any objective criteria to
determine such competition and, therefore, the same cannot be
used as a ground to cancel a duly approved location. It is further
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (4 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
submitted that the policy itself contemplates cluster-wise
allotment and permits the successful bidder to choose a suitable
premises within the notified area; therefore, mere proximity, even
if assumed, cannot constitute a violation.
10. Drawing attention of the Court towards the order dated
13.10.2025, learned counsel submits that the appellate authority
has acted in clear disregard of the directions issued by this Court
in the earlier round of litigation. Despite a specific direction to
decide the appeal on merits, the appellate authority has
mechanically remanded the matter without any justification. It is
submitted that once the entire record was available and the
authority had itself adverted to the merits, there remained no
occasion to remand the matter.
11. It is also submitted that the petitioner, acting upon the
approval granted by the respondents, has deposited substantial
amounts towards annual guarantee and has made considerable
investment for establishment of the shop. The impugned action,
therefore, not only results in grave financial prejudice but also
defeats the legitimate expectation arising from a duly granted
approval. Thus, it was prayed that the orders impugned may be
quashed and set aside and the location of shop No.27 be restored
and the petitioner be permitted to operate the said shop.
12. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that
the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy and the writ
petition is not maintainable. It is further contended that trade in
liquor is not a fundamental right and the petitioner cannot claim
equitable relief.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (5 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
13. Learned counsel for the respondents reiterates that the
approval of location was based on self-declaration furnished by the
petitioner and upon subsequent verification, discrepancies were
noticed. It is submitted that in terms of Clause 2.12 of the Excise
Policy, the authorities are empowered to cancel such approval
where it is found to be contrary to the policy conditions.
14. It was further contended that the location of the petitioner's
shop overlaps with or falls within the area affecting Shop No. 31 of
the adjoining cluster, thereby impacting the minimum guarantee
amount and resulting in loss of revenue to the State.
15. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the petitioner had obtained approval of the location on the basis of
self-declaration and upon verification, it was found that the
location was not in conformity with the applicable policy and
adversely affected the revenue of the State. It was thus submitted
that the remand order has been passed to ensure compliance with
principles of natural justice by affording opportunity of hearing to
all concerned parties and does not call for interference.
16. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the reliance placed by the respondents on Clause 2.12 of the
Excise Policy is wholly misconceived. The said provision permits
cancellation of location only where approval has been obtained on
the basis of incorrect or misleading information. In the present
case, there is not even a whisper of any such allegation against
the petitioner. On the contrary, the location was verified by the
departmental authorities themselves before granting approval. It
is thus submitted that the power under Clause 2.12 has been
exercised dehors its scope.
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (6 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
17. Heard learned counsel for the parties at bar. Perused the
material available on record.
18. Before dealing with controversy in hand, the operative
portion of the order dated 29.07.2025 passed by this Court in the
earlier round of litigation between the parties is reproduced below
for ready reference:-
"8. Accordingly, the Instant writ petition is partly allowed as
follows:
I. The order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the original authority as
affirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 03.06.2025
are set aside.
II. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal assailing the
order dated 02.05.2025 before the appellate authority. If there is
any delay, the time spent before this Court and if any other delay
occurred, an application is filed to condone the delay, the same
shall be considered on merits and the authority shall hear the
appeal on merits. The application to condone the delay as well as
the appeal filed, shall be considered within a period of 15 days.
9. Since this court in inclined to dispose of the writ petition at the
admission stage, no order on the impleadment application is
required to be passed. Accordingly, the application filed by the
third party for impleadment is rejected. However, it is open to him
to file an application for impleadment before the appellate
authority. If any, such application is filed, the same shall be
considered on its own merits.
10. All the pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of."
19. Upon a careful consideration of the material available on
record, this Court finds that the location of the petitioner's shop
was not a mere provisional or mechanical approval, but was
granted after following a structured process contemplated under
the Excise Policy. The petitioner had uploaded the proposed
location on the portal, pursuant to which the same was subjected
to physical verification by the Circle Inspector and thereafter
examined by the District Excise Officer, Udaipur. It is only upon
such verification and satisfaction that the location came to be
approved. Thus, the approval was preceded by due application of
mind on the part of the competent authority.
20. The Clause No. 2.12 of the Excise and Temperance Policy
2025-2029 is reproduced below for ready reference:
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (7 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
"2.12.1 The locations of all shops and godowns will be
automatically approved online on the 'Self Disclaimer of the
licensee, ensuring compliance with the provisions laid down in
the Rajasthan Excise Act and Rules and the minimum restricted
distance prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for National
and State Highways by feeding their geo tag coordinate data
online, the nearby locations will be identified as Schools,
religious places, Anganwadis and hospitals etc. will have to be
included and their status will have to be clearly mentioned.
2.12.2 After automatic approval of the liquor
shop/warehouse location, the concerned District Excise Officer
will conduct an inquiry, in which if it is found that the licensee
has obtained the location on the basis of wrong information, the
approval will be immediately cancelled. For getting the location
approved at a new place, the licensee will have to deposit a fee
of Rs. 1,00,000/-". Wherein according to point No. 2-"A liquor
shop for the retail sale of country liquors of foreign or Indian
made foreign liquor shop may not be located within a distance of
200 meters of college educational institutions, senior higher
secondary schools, girls schools of any standard, hospitals, place
of worships or place of public entertainment, a factory or a
labour or harijan colony."
21. This Court prima facie finds that the justification sought to
be assigned by the respondents for cancellation of the approved
location is founded on Clause 2.12 of the Excise Policy, which
contemplates cancellation where approval is obtained on the basis
of incorrect information. In the opinion of this Court, in the
present case, there is no finding, much less any material on
record, to indicate that the petitioner had furnished any false or
misleading information. In absence of any such foundational
requirement being satisfied, invocation of Clause 2.12 is clearly
misconceived.
22. In the opinion of this Court, the core basis of the impugned
order dated 02.05.2025 is the assumption that the petitioner's
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (8 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
Shop No. 27 is situated at the same location as Shop No. 31 of
Cluster No. 92. However, such conclusion is not borne out from
the record. On the contrary, the material placed on record,
including the consent letters and location details, clearly indicate
that both shops are situated in different premises, owned by
different landlords. The finding recorded by the District Excise
Officer, Udaipur, therefore, is factually erroneous and reflects non-
application of mind. Even otherwise, the reliance placed on the
concept of "unhealthy competition" is wholly misplaced. The
Excise Policy 2025-29 does not define or lay down any objective
parameters for determining what constitutes "unhealthy
competition". In absence of any statutory or policy benchmark, the
said expression cannot be invoked in an unbridled manner to
curtail rights flowing from a duly granted licence.
23. It is worthwhile to note here that the policy itself envisages
allocation of shops cluster-wise, leaving it open to the successful
bidder to identify a suitable location within the specified area,
subject to compliance with prescribed norms. Once the petitioner's
chosen location was verified and accepted by the authorities, it
was not open to the respondents to subsequently revisit the same
on the ground that such location may affect another licensee,
particularly when no violation of distance norms or other statutory
restrictions has been demonstrated.
24. Prima facie, the action of the respondents also fails to take
into consideration that the petitioner, upon approval of the
location, had altered his position by depositing substantial
amounts towards annual guarantee and by making necessary
investments for running the shop. The impugned cancellation,
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (9 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
therefore, not only suffers from arbitrariness but also defeats the
legitimate expectation arising out of a duly granted approval,
thereby causing serious civil and financial consequences to the
petitioner.
25. Insofar as the order dated 13.10.2025 passed by the
appellate authority is concerned, this Court finds that the same is
in clear deviation from the directions issued by this Court in the
earlier round of litigation. The appellate authority, despite having
the entire record before it and having adverted to the merits of
the case, has remanded the matter without identifying any
procedural infirmity or necessity for further inquiry. Such remand,
in the considered opinion of this Court, is not only unwarranted
but has resulted in perpetuating illegality and prolonging the
dispute, warranting this Court to decide the matter on merits.
26. Consequent to the aforesaid, the notice dated 03.11.2025
(Annex-19) issued by the District Excise Officer, Udaipur in
pursuance of the remand order cannot survive and is liable to be
quashed.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order dated 02.05.2025
(Annex-15) passed by the District Excise Officer, Udaipur is
arbitrary, suffers from non-application of mind and is
unsustainable in law. The order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex-19)
passed by the appellate authority remanding the matter is also
liable to be set aside.
28. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated
02.05.2025 (Annex-15) passed by the District Excise Officer,
Udaipur, the order dated 13.10.2025 (Annex-18) passed by the
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:15321] (10 of 10) [CW-23078/2025]
Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, and the notice dated 03.11.2025
(Annex-19) are hereby quashed and set aside.
29. The respondents are directed to restore the approved
location of Shop No. 27 in Cluster No. 91 as originally approved in
favour of the petitioner and permit the petitioner to operate the
said shop in accordance with law.
30. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 16/04/2026 at 02:59:21 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
