Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.8.99 so far it relates to declaring 5th and 6.10.1999 to be the dry days for the purpose of sale of liquor.

(2). The facts of the case are not in dispute. Petitioner has been awarded the exclusive privilege for the years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 for retail and wholesale sale of country liquor, Indian-made foreign liquor and beer vide contract-order dated 27.5.99 (Annexure 1). During the period of election of Lok Sabha, the Government of Rajasthan has passed the order dated 16.8.99 (Annexure 2) that days of polling and counting of votes, i.e. 6.10.99, and the day preceeding the counting day, i.e. 5.10.99, shall remain dry days. Polling day has already passed. Thus, the present petition has been filed on various grounds for quashing the order declaring 5th and 6.10.1999 as dry days.

(3). It has been averred by the petitioner that to maintain law and order situation on the relevant days, the administration, i.e. the District Collector cum District Magistrate, Jodhpur, has already issued an order dated 12.7.99 (Annexure 3) resorting to the powers under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that order also prohibited any person consuming the alcohol on any public place; same prohibition applies for serving liquor to any person in public places; even the transaction/transfer of liquor is prohibited except for the contractors; it is only the Excise Commissioner who has been entrusted with the power to pass such an order under Section 8 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter called ``the Act, 1950) and the State Government is not competent to do so; the counting would take place on 6.10.99, therefore, there is no justification for declaring 5.10.99 also as a dry day; Section 135-C of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short, ``the Act, 1951) provides for prohibition of sale, supply and distribution of liquor only on the polling day for forty-eight hours and, therefore, the Authorities have no power to extend it on the days of counting; the licence has not yet been issued to the present petitioner though his bid has been accepted and, therefore, the terms of the notice inviting tenders cannot be enforced against him; conditions, on which there can be prohibition on sale of liquor, have been contemplated in Section 53 of the Excise Act, and the same do not exist in the instant case. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

(4). Respondents have filed their replies rebutting all the allegations/contentions made in the petition. According to them, the writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioner cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the contractual obligations. More so, specific condition incorporated in the notice inviting tenders/licence, providing that the shops for the sale of articles licensed to the petitioner would be required to be closed on the dry days which have already been fixed or which may be fixed in future by the State Government/Excise Commissioner is binding on him. Thus, the State Government is competent to declare a particular day as dry day to meet any particular contingency and it is the satisfaction of the Government or the law enforcing agency for declaring a particular day as dry day. The prohibition contemplated in Section 135-C of the Act, 1951 is the minimum and petitioner may not be permitted to urge that Authorities/State cannot put embargo on sale etc. for the dates of counting of votes. Explanation to Section 36 of the Act, 1950 provides that the holder of a licence also includes a person whose tender or bid for a licence has been accepted, although he may not have actually received the licence and, petitioner has neither suffered any legal injury nor he has any legal right to enforce through writ petition. Contractual obligations cannot be enforced in writ jurisdiction, nor petitioner can seek alteration. variation/modification in the terms of contract/licence. Thus, all the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document