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
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 manner. The petitioner is using his warehouse as a liquor shop and counter sell the liquor after the time prescribes by the excise department and even using the warehouse as a liquor shop illegally.
4. That is further it is pertain to mention here t
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.
Compliance with statutory distance regulations for liquor shops from sensitive establishments is essential for public health and must be enforced by state authorities.
The court ruled that the rejection of a liquor license application based on arbitrary policy distinctions lacks reasonable grounding and does not adequately consider public interest.
The consent of the owner of the premises is necessary for carrying on liquor business, and in the absence of such consent, the authority is not entitled to grant a license to the tenant.
The District Magistrate has the power to direct closure or relocation of a liquor shop for the preservation of public peace, and a liquor shop licensee has no fundamental right to run the shop as per....
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
