Arun Bhansali, J.

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 19.06.2015 (Annexure-14) passed by District Excise Officer, Hanumangarh ('DEO'), whereby, the approval dated 22.02.2014 and licence dated 23.03.2014 for the year 2015-16 granted in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled at the risk and cost of the petitioner, the entire security amount and advance exclusive privilege amount after adjusting the same towards deficit for the month of June, 2015 has been forfeited and it has further been ordered that in case of deficit on account of re-auction of the shop, the same would be recovered from the collateral security given by the petitioner and would be recoverable under the provisions of Land Revenue Act, 1956.

2. The Commissioner (Excise), Udaipur ('Commissioner') issued notice inviting applications for grant of liquor licence for the year 2013- 14; the petitioner applied for grant of licence for Ward No. 26, Municipal Board, Hanumangarh and was granted licence for operating a shop at the applied place by order dated 22.02.2014; it is claimed that a Naukarnana was entered into between the petitioner and one Rajiv Kumar, which was duly attested by DEO; the shop was operated during the year; before closing of year, as per policy, the petitioner applied for renewal of licence for the year 2015-16 and by approval dated 14.02.2015, the petitioner's licence was ordered to be renewed for the year 2015-16; the petitioner deposited the required amount and was issued licence for the year 2015-16.

3. It is then indicated that the Excise Inspector on 06.05.2015 issued a notice to the petitioner calling upon him to submit explanation regarding the complaint filed against him with regard to giving the shop on sub-contract to Rajiv Kumar son of Shishpal during the period 2014-15. The petitioner replied to the said notice on 10.05.2014 denying the allegations and stated that neither he gave the shop on contract nor sublet the same to said Rajiv Kumar; a copy of the complaint was also demanded and it was prayed that the notice be dropped.

4. On 05.06.2015 a notice was issued by the DEO for change of location of the shop at Ward No. 26 on account of public protest and petitioner was granted three days' time to submit the change of site and was threatened that on failure the licence would be cancelled; the petitioner submitted a new location and the same was approved after charging the location change fee.

5. Where after, a notice dated 10.06.2015 was issued to the petitioner to submit explanation as to why his licence for the year 2015-16 may not be cancelled for violation of terms and conditions No. 3.1, 3.2, 8.2, 8.5 of the licence and Rule 72B of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 ('the Rules') during the licence period 2014-15 and the petitioner was directed to respond by 15.06.2015; an explanation was submitted by the petitioner; where after, vide impugned order dated 19.06.2015, the DEO cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner.

6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned passed by respondent No. 2 is ex facie illegal, unjust and arbitrary; the petitioner never sublet or transferred the shop in question to Rajiv Kumar so as to violate the provisions of the Rule 72B of the Rules and Section 34 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 ('the Act') and, consequently, there was no breach of any of the conditions of the licence so as to require cancellation; it is alleged that the action was taken by the respondents on account of extraneous considerations, inasmuch as, first the notice was issued for change of location, expecting the petitioner to fail in changing the location, however, as soon as the petitioner applied for a new location as per the directions, the notice seeking to cancel the licence was issued, which clearly indicates the extraneous considerations; it is further submitted that once the licence wa