JUDGMENT :

SATISH KUMAR SHARMA, J.

1. All these petitions except Petition No. 3378/2021, Sanwaria Seth and Brothers v. State of Rajasthan, have been filed by the licensees of liquor under the Excise Policy 2020-21 of the State of Rajasthan with the prayer to direct the respondents to renew their licenses for another one year and to quash the new Excise Policy issued by the State Government for the year 2021-22.

2. The D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3378/2021 Sanwaria Seth and Brothers vs. State of Rajasthan relates to the license for Bhang, which shall be listed separately, as prayed for.

3. We have heard learned counsel for both the sides and perused the written submissions, and material made available on record.

4. The Learned Counsel for the petitioners Mr. R.B. Mathur, Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia and Mr. Mohit Khandelwal have submitted that the State Government in its excise policy for the year 2020-21 clearly assured the applicants that their licenses would be renewed for another one year. It is further contended that Section 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 certainly restricts them from claiming renewal of the licenses but such restriction is not applicable to the State Government, therefore, the State Government cannot take shelter of the said provision to not fulfill its promise.

5. Above assurance was given for the first time as in previous years the respondents could not receive adequate number of applications. Initially the petitioners and other applicants were reluctant to apply for the licenses due to the losses occurred in previous years in which the licenses were issued only for one year and the attitude of the State Government being adverse to change its stand. The petitioners relied upon the above assurance of the State Government and highlights of the excise policy issued on the websites and applied for the licenses. After obtaining the licenses they made huge investment in establishment of shops with the belief that they will get chance to run the shops at least for two years.

6. Like other entities, the State is also duty bound to fulfill its contractual obligations. It cannot be allowed to resile from its own promise or assurance given at the time of issuing the licenses. But the State Government has declined to renew the licenses and has issued new excise policy for the year 2021-22.

7. The State Government has not considered the plight of the petitioners. They had to suffer huge losses due to the restrictions imposed by the State Government in COVID-19 Pandemic. The petitioners in the whole year could open their shops for full-time only for a period of two and a half months.

8. The reliefs and rebates provided in other contractual obligations have not been extended to the liquor licensees even the benefits given to the liquor licensees such as RTDC and other hotels have not been provided to the retail licensees which is a clear discrimination against them with the similarly situated entities.

9. The State Government has also not taken note of the fact that other States have renewed the licenses for another one year or some of them extended the period of licenses for two months.

10. In view of clear promise by the State Government the petitioners applied for licenses with legitimate expectation that their licenses shall be renewed for another one year. In such circumstances the State Government is obliged to renew their licenses on the basis of the principle of promissory estoppel, legitimate expectation and fairness. The new policy issued by the State Government for the year 2021-22 is a gross violation of Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 299 of the Constitution of India, therefore, the State Government should be directed to renew the licenses of the petitioners and the new policy for 2021-22 is liable to be quashed. In support of their arguments, they have placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu vs. Vinayagamurty, 2002 (3) CTC 257

(ii) Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu vs. K V