Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, SANDEEP SHAH
Tulachhi wife of Dhanraj – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Secretary Finance, Government of Rajasthan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. impleadment application dismissed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. details of clause 2.7.3 presented. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. arguments regarding fundamental rights. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court's conclusion on policy application. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
Order :
S. Chandrashekhar, J.
I.A. No.1/25:-
1. This application under Order I Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by Bhakhar Singh seeking his impleadment in the present writ petition.
2. The applicant states that he is running a restaurant and obtained a license for Beer Bar in the name and style of Yaduraj Restaurant. The grievance of the applicant is that the writ petitioner is running a liquor shop unauthorizedly from her warehouse. According to the applicant, such unauthorized use of the warehouse is causing difficulties for him to run his Beer Bar. In the application vide I.A. No.1/2025, the applicant states and makes the following allegations:-
“3.That it is relevant to submit hee that applicant is running a restaurant cum ber var for which he have been issued license by the excise department. That is petitioner is having a warehouse near the bar of the applicant which is used as a liquor shop unauthorized and in illegal m
A validly enacted law cannot be challenged on the grounds of hardship; the provisions apply uniformly, and existing licenses are not affected by new distance requirements.
There is no fundamental right to trade in liquor; state policies can modify licensing rights as long as they comply with statutory provisions.
The State Government cannot relax excise policy restrictions on shifting liquor shops outside designated areas, as it contravenes established law requiring public notification.
Contractual obligations under the Excise Policy cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction if entered knowingly, and the state has a duty to regulate liquor quality.
Contractual obligations under the Excise Policy cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction if entered knowingly, and the state has a duty to regulate liquor quality.
Contractual obligations under the Excise Policy cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction if entered knowingly, supporting state regulation for public health.
Compliance with statutory distance regulations for liquor shops from sensitive establishments is essential for public health and must be enforced by state authorities.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
