Hon ble VYAS, J.—By these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 21.01.2009 (Annex.- 6), so also, fard (memo) prepared by the respondents dated 21.01.2009 (Annex.-6A). The petitioners have further sought direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to conduct their business in pursuance of the licences. In the alternative, it is prayed that proportionately exclusive privileged amount may be reduced by passing appropriate and necessary order and respondents may be directed to pay cost of liquor lying in the shop in question under the seal of the respondents.

2. For deciding the controversy raised in these writ petitions, for the sake of convenience, the facts narrated in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.682/2009 are taken into consideration and discussed.

3. According to brief facts of the case, for the purpose of regulating import, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and of intoxicating drugs, the State legislature enacted the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (in short, to be called hereinafter as “the Act of 1950”); and, further, in exercise of the power conferred under Section 41 of the Act, rules were framed known as the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (in short, to be called hereinafter as “the Rules of 1956”).

4. The Excise Commissioner issued notice dated 21.01.2008 inviting applications for renewal of licence for sale of country liquor for the year 2008-2009, in which, it was made clear that the minimum exclusive privileged amount will be 8% higher than the exclusive privileged amount of the concerned shop for the year 2007-2008. In pursuance of the said notice for the various shops, however, no application was received from any of the parties, therefore, the shops remained unlifted; and, again notice dated 18.03.2008 was issued inviting applications for grant of licence. In the advertisement, it was made clear that the minimum amount should be at least 80% of the amount fixed originally and certain other conditions were also incorporated.

5. In the Barmer town, there are 9 shops for country liquor and, for those shops, the minimum exclusive privileged amount is fixed for each shop. In the present case, the controversy is in relation to the shop located in Ward No.24, Barmer. Despite notice dated 18.03.2008, no application was submitted by any person for lifting the said shop, so also, various other shops and they were lying unlifted. Therefore, again, the respondent No.2 issued a public notice on 28.03.2008 and efforts were made for granting licence for those shops for which nobody applied.

6. Originally the minimum exclusive privilege amount fixed for the shop in question was Rs.14,64,774/- but it was not possible to lift the shop on such high amount. However, the petitioner applied for having licence for sale of country liquor at the shop sanctioned in Ward No.24 of Barmer town for a sum of Rs.10,41,111/- and the Excise Commissioner sanctioned the same in favour of the petitioner vide sanction dated 01.04.2008. In pursuance of the said sanction, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.1,30,139/- as security amount and further deposited like amount in respect of basic licence fees and the remaining amount was to be paid in 12 monthly installments.

7. As per provisions of law, the shop in question was to be opened in Ward No.24 of the municipal area Barmer only after getting the location of the shop appro-ved. The petitioner submitted site-plan showing location of the shop and the same was approved by the respondent authorities vide Annex.-5 after granting relaxation as provided under sub-rule (2) of Rule 75 of the Rules of 1956. According to the petitioner, as per Rule 75 of the Rules of 1956, the shop for sale of liquor shall not be located within a distance of 200 mtr from the collegiate educational institutions, Senior Secondary Schools, Girl Schools, hospitals or place of worship. However, a Gurudwara is situated at a distance of about 85 mtr from the shop in ques

Click Here to Read the rest of this document