Point of Law: Clause 7 of Standard License Conditions, which clearly dealt with operation of shops, their timings and other conditions.

JUDGMENT :

1. These special appeals are directed against the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners were allowed and the respondents were directed to give relaxation of proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners.

2. The writ petitions were filed by the respondents-petitioners with the submissions that they were allottees/license-holders of liquor shops for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The petitioners deposited the license/composite fees (lump sum amount) and Advanced Exclusive Privilege Amount as per the Rules and the terms of license. It is claimed that the respondent department delivered the country liquor to the petitioners on 04.05.2020 though the tenure of the allotted shops started from 01.04.2020 on account of the fact that the country was suffering from COVID Pandemic and Government of India & State of Rajasthan had ordered for closure of all the liquor shops all over the country from 01.04.2020 to 04.05.2020.

3. Submissions were made that as the previous allottees/license-holders for the year 2019-20 were granted relaxation for the composite fee by the State by its Circular dated 07.04.2020, looking to the fact that there was lock-down for the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020, the State should have provided relaxation in the composite fee for a period of 34 days, proportionately.

4. The petitions were contested by the respondents on the ground that as per the detailed guidelines & instructions, under which the licenses were allotted, the petitioners were not entitled for any relaxation/compensation for the period the shops remained closed from 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020. Reliance in this regard was placed on Clause 7.3 of the Standard License Conditions.

5. The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, while taking note of the extra-ordinary circumstances prevailing in the country due to COVID-19 and the fact that the lock-down was imposed, inter-alia, for the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020, which circumstances were unusual and akin to force majeure found it a fit case for invoking the writ jurisdiction.

6. Learned Single Judge further observed that the State itself had granted such proportionate relief in the composite fee for the year 2019-20 for the period when lock-down was in existence i.e. from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 and consequently, allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to give relaxation for proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners.

7. Learned AAG made submissions that the fundamental basis for grant of relief by the learned Single Judge pertained to the fact that the State itself had granted relief in the composite fee for the year 2019-20, for the period when lock-down was in existence i.e. from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 and therefore, it ought to have extended the same relaxation in the composite fee to the petitioners also, which determination is contrary to the relaxation, which was granted by the State vide Circular dated 07.04.2020.

8. It is submitted that the Circular dated 07.04.2020, which was filed as Annex.-R/1 in the writ petition, only provided for relaxation for the period 2019-20 in Exclusive Privilege Amount & Special Vend Fee and for the year 2020-21 also, the same was confined to Exclusive Privilege Amount & Special Vend Fee and as such, there was no difference between the relaxation provided for the years 2019-20 & 2020-21 and therefore, such, passing of the order on the said basis is wholly unjustified.

9. Submissions were also made that further ground indicated on account of the lock-down during the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020 for the purpose of grant of relief also is contrary to the Standard License Conditions, which specifically provided that any order passed in keeping the shops closed for any special reason, the licensee would not be entitled to any relaxation/compensation and as the respondents had entered into the co