SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Raj) 571

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Indrajit Mahanty,Satish Kumar Sharma,JJ.
M/s Lucky Wines & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2993/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1139/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1140/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2960/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2973/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2978/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3060/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3113/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3123/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3133/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3134/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3138/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3214/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3244/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3295/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3298/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3302/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3331/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3332/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3338/2021, B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3361/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3378/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3385/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3436/2021, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3498/2021 and D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3507/2021
Decided on : 17-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr. R.B. Mathur, Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Mr. Rajveer Gurjar, Mr. A.R. Meena, Mr. Prateek Mathur, Mr. Mohit Khandelwal, Mr. Mahaveer Kalwa, Mr. Kuldeep Aswal, Mr. Ashok Kumar Meena, Mr. Ashutosh Bhatia, Mr. Rajveer Sharma, for the Appellant; Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Mr. Siddhant Jain, Mr. Darsh Pareek, Mr. Vivek Dangi, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Excise Policy - License Renewal - Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 - Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21 and 299 of the Constitution of India - [KEYWORD] - License Renewal - Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, Article 14, 19(1)(g), 21, 299 of the Constitution of India - The court discussed the interpretation of the relevant clause of the excise policy for the year 2020-21 and the applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel. It highlighted the statutory restriction under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 and the exclusive power of the State Government to grant licenses for trading in liquor. The court also emphasized the material changes in the new excise policy for the year 2021-22 and the absence of any promise by the State Government to renew the licenses mandatorily. The judgments cited by the petitioners were distinguished from the present case, and the court dismissed the petitions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitions were filed by liquor licensees under the Excise Policy 2020-21 of the State of Rajasthan, seeking renewal of their licenses for another year and challenging the new Excise Policy issued for the year 2021-22. The petitioners relied on the State Government's assurance in the previous policy and highlighted their investments in establishing shops.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the State Government did not make any promise to renew the licenses mandatorily and emphasized the statutory restriction under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. It also noted the material changes in the new excise policy for 2021-22 and the absence of legitimate grounds for interference in the policy decision of the State Government.

Issues: Interpretation of the relevant clause of the excise policy for the year 2020-21, applicability of the principle of promissory estoppel, statutory restriction under Section 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, and the exclusive power of the State Government to grant licenses for trading in liquor.

Ratio Decidendi: The principle of promissory estoppel can only be applied where there is an unequivocal promise, and it is not applicable against a statute. The State Government has the exclusive power to grant licenses for trading in liquor, and its policy decision cannot be interfered with unless arbitrary, unfair, unreasonable, or violative of fundamental rights. The absence of any promise by the State Government to renew the licenses mandatorily and the material changes in the new excise policy for 2021-22 were crucial in the court's decision.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions, stating that no case had been made out for interference in writ jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Sharma, J. - All these petitions except petition No. 3378/2021, Sanwaria Sethi 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 v. 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(l)(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) The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu V/s. Vinayagamurty- 2002 (3) CTC 257 Madras High Court.

(II) Secretary to Government of Tamil Nad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top