The court mandates timely adjudication of claims for refund of security deposits and critical examination of policy extensions, enforcing principles of legality and procedural fairness in administrative actions.

JUDGMENT :

SAMEER JAIN, J.

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and predominantly defined by the threefold challenge raised regarding the extension of license period of the petitioner(s) for three months i.e. from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024, in pursuance of order no. 4(1)/REV/EXC/2024 dated 13.03.2024 issued by Government of Rajasthan, Finance (Excise) Department; the order/guidelines dated 28.08.2024 issued by the Excise Commissioner vide serial number F.32(B)(1) (After Policy) EX/L/2024/2024-25-03000/149 to all the District Excise Officers for calculation of shortfall for the extended period as arbitrary and beyond the enabling order no. 4 (1)/REV/EXC/2024 dated 13.03.2024; and the illegal and arbitrary actions of the respondents in not refunding the security deposit alongwith the Advanced Annual Guarantee (hereinafter referred as ‘AAG’) in light of the successful completion of the extended license period (01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024) of the petitioner in light of the order dated 13.03.2024. Consequently, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11294/2025 titled as Atar Singh vs. the State of Rajasthan and ors. , is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not vis-à-vis the questions of law to be determined by this Court; the instant judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.

2. The lead petition is filed with the following prayers:

"a) Quash and set aside the impugned guidelines dated 28.08.2024 issued by the Excise Commissioner;

b) Direct the respondent authorities to refund to the petitioner the security deposit and advanced annual guarantee amount along with interest @ 18% in light of the successful completion of the extended license period by the petitioner;

c) Quash and set aside any order passed by the respondent authorities against the petitioners during the pendency of this writ petitions;

d) Such further relief for which the petitioner is entitled may also be awarded including exemplary cost of the writ petition."

SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS:

3. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners have unanimously contended that the petitioner herein was the highest bidder (H1) for the composite liquor shop and he was issued a license by the respondent no. 4 to operate the license for the year 2023-24 and the petitioner operated for the license for the said period. The petitioner deposited all the advance payment towards the license and stared operating the shop from April 2022 and the petitioner, in accordance with the policy started lifting the liquor from RSGSM and RSBCL. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner operated the license till 31.03.2023 and did not opt for r