[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pooran Singh vs State Of Rajasthan (2026:Rj-Jd:6599) on 5 February, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:6599]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17646/2024
Pooran Singh S/o Shri Narayan Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Durri, Post Swaroopganj, District - Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, District - Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Ramdev
Mr. Lakshya Singh Udawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr Gaurav Bishnoi for
Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
05/02/2026
By way of filing the present civil writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
"(i) The impugned order dated 01.05.32017 (Annex-
5) passed by Excise Commissioner, Udaipur may kindly be
ordered to be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to refund the
amount of Rs.16,93,300/-" with interest of 12% per annum
from the dated of depositing the same to the petitioner.
(iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in
favour of the petitioner. ...."
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner participated in the
draw of lots conducted by the respondents for allotment of a liquor
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:12:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6599] (2 of 4) [CW-17646/2024]
shop licence at Village Khairabad (Group No. 85). After being
declared successful in the draw of lots, the petitioner deposited a
sum of ₹2,28,300/- as security deposit with the respondents.
However, before the shop could be allotted to the petitioner, a
complaint came to be filed against him alleging, inter alia, that he
had been convicted for an offence under the Excise Act and,
therefore, as per the prevailing policy governing the issuance of
liquor shop licences, the shop in question could not be allotted to
him. Upon verification, the contents of the complaint were found
to be correct. Consequently, the District Excise Officer, Bhilwara,
vide order dated 30.03.2017, revoked the grant of liquor shop
licence issued in favour of the petitioner and also forfeited a sum
of ₹2,60,910/- deposited by him as security deposit.
As per the petitioner, he was not aware of the order
cancelling the allotment of the liquor shop in his favour and,
therefore, vide two different challans dated 23.03.2017, he
deposited a further sum of ₹14,65,000/- with the respondents.
Being aggrieved by the order of the District Excise Officer revoking
the licence, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Excise
Commissioner, wherein, in the alternative, it was prayed that in
case the petitioner was found ineligible for allotment of the shop,
at least the amount of ₹14,65,000/- deposited by him subsequent
to the cancellation order dated 30.03.2017 be refunded. The
appeal filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by the appellate
authority on the ground that, at the time of participating in the
draw of lots, the petitioner had concealed the fact of his conviction
for offences under Section 16/54 of the Excise Act.
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:12:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6599] (3 of 4) [CW-17646/2024]
3. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.03.2017
passed by respondent No. 2 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, that
the amount of ₹14,65,000/- deposited by the petitioner
subsequent to cancellation of the liquor shop licence could not
have been forfeited, as the same was deposited in ignorance of
the cancellation order dated 30.03.2017 passed by the District
Excise Officer, Bhilwara. Secondly, that although the petitioner was
prosecuted and convicted for an offence under Section 16/54 of
the Excise Act, he was granted the benefit of probation by the
competent criminal court and, therefore, is entitled to an
opportunity for rehabilitation and reformation in society by way of
allotment of a liquor shop.
4. Heard.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds
that at the time of participating in the draw of lots for allotment of
a liquor shop licence at Village Khairabad (Group No. 85), the
petitioner intentionally concealed the factum of registration of FIR
No. 126/2011 at Police Station Hamirgarh, District Bhilwara, for an
offence under Section 16/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act. The fact
regarding his conviction by the competent criminal court was also
deliberately concealed.
6. Section 34(d) of the Rajasthan Excise Act and Rules 76(b)
and 76(c) of the Rajasthan Excise Rules clearly empower the
authorities to cancel the allotment of a liquor shop if the same has
been made in favour of a person convicted under the Excise Act
and to confiscate the deposits made by him pursuant to such
allotment or grant of licence. The grant of benefit under the
Probation of Offenders Act by the competent criminal court,
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:12:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6599] (4 of 4) [CW-17646/2024]
considering the petitioner to be a first offender, is intended only to
shield such offender from the adverse influence of hardened
criminals and to facilitate reformation; however, the same does
not efface or nullify the conviction itself.
7. Therefore, the order cancelling the allotment of the liquor
shop and the consequential confiscation of the amount deposited
by the petitioner is fully justified. The appeal preferred by the
petitioner against the order of cancellation was also rightly
rejected after due consideration of all relevant facts and
circumstances of the case.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present writ petition
is dismissed.
9. The stay application also stands disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
58-himanshu/-
(Uploaded on 07/02/2026 at 01:12:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
