Point of Law: As per the clause 1 sub-clause (iv) of Excise Policy for the year 2021-22 and Rules of 1956, the person, whose payment of previous financial year is due, is ineligible for allotment of the liquor shop

JUDGMENT :

1. The lawyers are abstaining from the work, due to strike.

2. This civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this petition for writ may kindly be allowed and by any other appropriate writ, order or direction:

a. Quash the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the Addl. Excise Commissioner (Annex-4); and

b. By an appropriate order, writ or direction cancel the allotment made in favour of the Respondent No.5 with respect to liquor shop of Sagrod (Shop Code: 0301026), Circle Banswara, Excise District Banwara, Rajasthan and issue said shop in favour of the petitioner considering him to be H1;

c. Declare that allotment of liquor shop of Sagrod (Shop Code: 0301026), Circle Banswara, Excise District Banswara, Rajasthan. in favour of Respondent No.5 Mr. Janmesh Jain was illegal.

d. Issue such order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;”

3. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the respondent-authorities vide notification dated 21.06.2021 invited applications for allotment of liquor shops in accordance with bidding system. The petitioner applied for a shop (Code : 0301026) situated at Sagrod Circle, Banswara with an amount of Rs.12,94,8537/-. The respondent-authorities in the year 20212022 have issued a set of term in a policy; to be eligible, a candidate for the year 2021-2022, who is already having license, must have cleared all the dues (in the form of any fees or license fees), if pending till December, 2020.

3.1. The respondent-authorities vide orders dated 31.05.2021 and 09.06.2021 along with demand notice dated 01.06.2021 issued against the petitioner, raised a demand of Rs.7,52,240/-towards Special Vend Fee (SVF) for the fourth quarter i.e. January-March, 2021.

3.2. Thereafter, the District Excise Officer sent an intimation to the Additional Excise Commissioner, vide letter dated 01.07.2021 to debar the petitioner from allotment of liquor shop for the year 2021-22. The Additional Excise Commissioner, Udaipur Zone vide the impugned order dated 01.07.2021 (Annex.4) debarred the petitioner from allotment of liquor shop, on count of the aforesaid demand and considering the application of respondent no.5 – Mr. Janmesh Jain H2, as a Second highest bidder for the year 20212022.

4. Mr. Surendra Khatri petitioner in person submitted that the respondent-authorities have acted in utter violation and disregard to the prescriptions of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1956’) and Rajasthan Excise Policy for the year 2021-22. He further submitted that the respondent-authorities have intentionally debarred the petitioner, despite being the highest bidder (H1) in the allotment process in question, even when there were no pending dues on the part of the petitioner.

5. The petitioner in person also submitted that the respondent-authorities passed the impugned order without following the due process of law and without following the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the impugned action of the respondent-authorities clearly reveals a legal malice, forbidden under the law.

6. In support of his submissions, the petitioner in person relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Maharaja Dharmander Prasad Singh & Ors. AIR 1989 SC 997 and Kalabharati Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745.

7. On other hand, Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned Senior Counsel & Additional Advocate General assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for the respondents opposed the aforesaid submissions made by the petitioner in person, and submitted that vide clause 1 sub-clause (vi) of the policy of the year 2021-22 itself, it was made amply clear that any person ineligible for grant of license under the Rules of 1956, shall be ineligible to ap