ORDER :

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17477/2022, while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

1.1. The prayer clauses read as under :

“A. The order dated 07.06.2022 (Annex.2) passed by the learned Tax Board, Ajmer may kindly be quashed and set aside and the appeal so filed by the respondent may kindly be rejected.

B. Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of the Petitioner may kindly be granted.

C. Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.”

2. Brief facts, which emanates from the pleadings, are that on 04.07.2015, a tanker (hereinafter also referred to as ‘vehicle in question’) of the respondent was inspected by the District Excise Officer (Distillery), Udaipur, during the course of which, theft of the spirit was found.

2.1. Thereafter, the tanker in question was seized, whereupon S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7563/2016 (M/s. H.M.G. Bulk Carriers Vs. State of Raj. And Ors.), was preferred before this Hon’ble Court, which was decided on 01.08.2016, by passing the following order :

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the vehicle of the petitioner has been seized by the Excise Department and pursuant to that seizure the petitioner has moved an application under Section 69 (6) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1950') before the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur for releasing the vehicle. It is submitted that the aforesaid application of the petitioner is pending before the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur and till date no order has been passed, therefore, a direction be issued to Excise Commissioner, Udaipur to decide the application of the petitioner within a fixed period of time.

Dr. Sachin Achayara puts in appearance on behalf of the Excise Department and submits that he has not objection if a direction is issued to the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur to decide the application of the petitioner preferred under Section 69 (6) of the Act of 1950 within a fixed time.

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of and the Excise Commissioner, Udaipur is directed to decide the application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 69 (6) of the Act of 1950 expeditiously preferably within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order.

Stay petition also stands disposed of.”

2.2. As the afore-quoted order would reveal, this Hon’ble Court had directed the State/respondents therein to decide the issue of releasing the Vehicle in question, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 69(6) of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1950’). In compliance of the said order dated 01.08.2016, the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur (also referred to as ‘learned authority’) passed an order on 31.08.2016, whereby the learned authority, acting upon such the aforementioned order dated 01.08.2016 passed by this Hon’ble Court, took into consideration, amongst others, the fact that out of 20,000 liters of spirit, which was there in the tanker in question, 494 liters of spirit was found missing.

2.3. As regards, the admission of the tanker driver, namely, Satendra Singh, pertaining to the missing quantity of the spirit, the learned authority in its order dated 31.08.2016 made an observation to the effect that the tanker driver accepted that he had sold the spirit after stealing the same, while the rest was kept with him. The learned authority also recorded in its order that the tanker driver-Satendra Singh without breaking the seals had managed to cause such theft upon which a