Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—In response to the invitation of applications for grant of licences for retail sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL)/beer for the year 2009-2010, the petitioner applied for issuance of license for such liquor shop at Nokha, Bikaner; and the lottery having been drawn in his favour, a sanction order came to be issued to the petitioner on 25.02.2009 in response whereof he deposited the requisite amount with the respondents.

2. However, a complaint came to be made against the petitioner that an FIR bearing number 57/2004 had been lodged against him at Police Station, Nokha for offences under Section 19/54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act ('the Act of 1950') and Sections 341 and 382/34 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and challan had been filed; and, thus, he was ineligible to be granted the license in question. Upon receipt of such a complaint, the District Excise Officer, Bikaner ('the DEO') issued a notice to the petitioner on 24.03.2009 proposing to cancel the licence granted to him particularly with reference to the Condition No.1 (Gha) of the application form for issuance of the license whereby the person against whom any case of serious offence under the Act of 1950 or the provisions mentioned in Section 34 of the Act of 1950 or under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 has been registered or he had been convicted thereunder was declared ineligible.

3. For ready reference, the eligibility conditions as stated in the format of the application could be read as under:-

<span class=”Hfont”> ^^1- ik=rk

fons'kh efnjk ,o ach;j fjVsy vkQ foØ; gsrq os gh O;fä vkosnu dj ldsaxs] tks jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1950 ,oa blds vUrxZr cuk;s x;s fu;eksa ds rgr bl izdkj vuqKki= /kkj.k djus dh ;ksX;rk j[krs gSA eq[; :i ls fuEufyf[kr O;fä vkosnu i= nsu sds fy;s v;ksX; jgsaxs %

¼d½ dksbZ Hkh O;fä tks Lo;a vFkok tkfeu ds :i esa vkcdkjh foHkkx dk ckxhnkj gks]

¼[k½ o"kZ 2008-09 ds ,sls vuqKk/kkjh] ftuesa ekg fnlEcj] 2008 rd dh ,dkdh fo'ks"kkf/kdkj jkf'k@ykbZlsal Qhl dh dksbZ jkf'k cdk;k gks]

¼x½ dksbZ Hkh O;fä tks vBkjg o"kZ ls de vk;q dk gks]

¼?k½ dksbZ Hkh O;fä ftlds fo:) jktLFkku vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1950 vFkok bldh /kkjk 34 esa mYysf[kr vf/kfu;eksa vFkok ukjdksfVDl MªXl ,.M lkbZdksVªksfid lCLVsalst ,DV] 1985 ds vUrxZr xEHkhj vijk/k dk dksbZ ekeyk ntZ gks] vFkok mlesa ltk;kc gqvk gksA

¼M½ jktLFkku vkcdkjh fu;e] 1956 ds fu;e 74 ds vUrxZr vuqKki= /kkj.k gsrq v;ksX; O;fäA**

In response to the notice issued by the DEO, the petitioner submitted a reply on 30.03.2009 with the submissions that he had falsely been implicated in the said FIR No. 57/2004 whereunder five persons including himself had been challaned. The petitioner contended that he had not been convicted and the matter was still pending in the Court; and that the challan having been filed under Sections 341, 382/34 IPC and 19/54 of the Act of 1950, it was not a matter of serious offence so as to render him ineligible.

4. The DEO, however, referred to the aforementioned Clause 1 (Gha) of the application form and found that the petitioner misled the Department and attempted obtaining license by false declaration. The DEO, thus, proceeded to cancel the sanction issued in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 30.03.2009.

5. The aforesaid order dated 30.03.2009 was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in CWP No. 2762/2009 wherein, after making an interim order dated 01.04.2009 to the effect that the license, if granted by the Department, would remain subject to the decision of the writ petition, this Court heard and decided the writ petition on 02.04.2009. This Court took note of the fact that in relation to the said Condition No. 1 (Gha) in the format of the application, the Additional Commissioner (Administration), Excise Department had forwarded a communication dated 22.03.2007 to the District Excise Officers stating clarification that reads as under:-

<span class=”Hfont”> ^^1- foHkkx }kjk tks vkosnu izi= tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk mlds fcUnq la[;k