Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Manoj Kumar Garg, J.
Smt. Renu - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4470/2020
Decided on : 17-02-2021
EPA and Composite Fee - Liquor Shop Allotment - Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 - Section 9-A, 56 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 - The court dismissed the writ petition seeking to quash the order to deposit the entire due amount for EPA and composite fees for the allotment of a liquor shop. The court held that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent department accepting the terms and conditions, and any closure of shops would not impact the recovery of EPA. The court cited the case of Har Shankar & Ors Vs. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr and held that the law of equity cannot override the specific conditions of the contract. The court also referred to the case of Nawal Singh Ratnawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and held that the terms in the contract prohibiting any impact upon the royalty upon new mining leases being granted or the present mining leases being terminated were categorical and no relief could be granted. The court dismissed the writ petition and the stay petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought relief from the court to quash the order to deposit the entire due amount for EPA and composite fees for the allotment of a liquor shop. The petitioner argued that the Covid-19 pandemic and cancellation of the Gogamedi fair had impacted the target sale of liquor and should lead to a reduction in the EPA. The respondents argued that the impugned orders were passed in conformity with the guidelines and that the petitioner cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the contractual obligation based on an unfounded plea.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had entered into a contract with the respondent department accepting the terms and conditions, and any closure of shops would not impact the recovery of EPA. The court held that the law of equity cannot override the specific conditions of the contract and therefore, no relief as sought for can be granted in favor of the petitioner.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner should be granted relief from depositing the entire due amount for EPA and composite fees for the allotment of a liquor shop due to the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and cancellation of the Gogamedi fair.
Ratio Decidendi: The court cited the case of Har Shankar & Ors Vs. Dy. Excise and Taxation Commr and held that the law of equity cannot override the specific conditions of the contract. The court also referred to the case of Nawal Singh Ratnawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and held that the terms in the contract prohibiting any impact upon the royalty upon new mining leases being granted or the present mining leases being terminated were categorical and no relief could be granted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition and the stay petition.
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs: -
(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to re-determine the EPA and composite fee of the shop allotted to the petitioner looking to the change circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic and cancellation of the conduct the Gogamedi fair,
(iii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed that if the respondents are not ready to re-determine the EPA and Composite fee for the petitioner's allotment then the amount deposited by the petitioner of the Rs. 13,61,150/- may kindly be refund with interest to the petitioner.
(iv) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner,
(v) The cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government issued a Gazette notification on 08.02.2020 with regard to Excise policy for year 2020-21 and in pursuance of said notification, an excise policy was framed by the State. On 04.03.2020, the State Government made certain amendments in the policy notified on 08.02.2020 with regard to issuance of license for liquor shops. The respondent Excise department prepared the list of liquor shops and also determined the application fee, EPA and composite fee amount.
3. In pursuance of the advertisement and policy, the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of liquor shop in Nohar Tehsil, District Hanumangarh. After draw of lottery, the petitioner was allotted shop in Location No. 115 Gogamedi (5 GM). In pursuance of allotment order, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 13,61,150/-. However, after the outbreak of corona virus pandemic, there was complete lockdown in the State, therefore, neither the shop of petitioner could be opened nor the amount of EPA and composite fee could be deposited. It is argued that Gogamedi is the rural area in Nohar Tehsil wherein, every year in the month of July and August a historical fair is organized. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the fair was cancelled and therefore, the desired target could not be achieved. On 21.04.2020, the petitioner submitted an application before the respondent no.2 stating therein that she has already deposited 4% guarantee amount but due to lockdown, the remaining amount of EPA and composite fee could not be deposited, therefore, the guarantee amount may be reduced. However, the respondents issued a notice to the petitioner on 13.05.2020 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs. 66,02,630/- within a period of three days. The petitioner submitted yet another application with the request to reduce the guarantee amount or while cancelling the allotment, the amount of Rs. 13,61,150/- may be refunded.
4. It is submitted that vide impugned order dated 18.05.2020, the respondents were called upon the petitioner to deposit the entire due amount else the amount deposited by the petitioner shall be forfeited. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that determination of high EPA for Gogamedi shop is due to historical fair organized in Gogamedi, however, since due to Covid-19 pandemic, the fair was cancelled and liquor shop could not be opened, therefore, the amount of EPA was required to be reduced by the respondent Department. It is further submitted that the respondent department has already reduced the EPA and composite fee of 27 groups in Hanumangarh District so also reduced the composite fees upto 15% in the second lottery, therefore, the action of the respondents in not reducing the EPA and composite fees for petitioner's allotment and insisting upon the petitioner to deposit
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
