JUDGMENT :

(Nupur Bhati, J.)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 11.01.2021 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.11384/2020 (Balveer Bana v. State of Rajasthan and other connected matters) which is reproduced herein below:-

"The petitioners are the licence holders of the shops of selling Indian made foreign liquor and country made liquor in various locations of State of Rajasthan. They have filed these writ petitions being aggrieved with the action of the respondent - Excise Department of imposing penalty upon the petitioners for the reason that they have failed to achieve the target of selling the liquor as per the conditions of the agreement executed between them and the respondent - Excise Department or in other words for selling less quantity of liquor from the fixed target. The Excise Department has imposed the said penalties and demanded the same while invoking the provisions of Clauses 3.18 (1) and 4.6 of the Excise and Temperance Policy for 2020-21 (hereinafter referred as "Excise Policy 2020-21").

Mr M.S.Singhvi - learned Advocate General - Senior Counsel assisted by ish Sankhla and Mr K.S. Lodha has by Mr Girish submitted that Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Satveer Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (DBCWP No.10936/2020) and other connected writ petitions decided on 08.12.2020 has dismissed the challenge of Clauses 3.18 (i) and 4.6 of the Excise Policy 2020-21 and the controversy raised in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the said decision.

Learned counsels for the petitioners are not in a position to dispute the fact that the challenge to the Clauses 3.18 (i) and 4.6 of the Excise Policy 2020-21 has been failed before the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench.

The Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Satveer Chaudhary, and other connected writ petitions (supra) has held as under:

"29. We have considered the contentions.

30. Admittedly, petitioners have entered into a contract and as per the terms and conditions of the license, they are required to follow the conditions imposed by the respondent and the terms of the Excise Policy. As per the terms of the Excise Policy 2020-21, petitioners were required to sell a particular quantity of IMFL/Beer and in case of short lifting, they were required to pay the amount as Additional Minimum Special Vend Fees. Further, they were required to sell 10% more than the last year's quantity. Petitioners have entered into the contract with open eyes and now, they cannot challenge the terms of the Excise Policy 2020-21, on the ground that the clauses are contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution of India and against the objects of the Excise Policy.

31. It is a clear case of the respondent that they are duty bound to supply good quality product to the consumers and if restrictions are not imposed, there would be illegal transportation of liquor in the State and bad quality product would find place in the market and would cause revenue loss as well to the Government.

32. The Excise Policy for the year 2015-16 was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Abhishek Jaiswal v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.948/2016)." The matter pertained to short lifting of IMFL/Beer. Division Bench held that charging of Additional Vend Fees on account of short lifting of IMFL/Beer, cannot be said to be a tax or penalty and the same is supported by Subordinate Legislation.

33. In the case of "Har Shankar and Ors. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Ors. AIR 1975 SC 1121, Apex Court has held that in a concluded contract, Writ Petition is not an appropriate remedy for impeaching contractual obligations. In, "State of Rajasthan and Ors. v. M/S C.K.M. and Company (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2007)" there was condition in the agreement that any kind of stoppage of mining operations shall not have an