Appellate courts should exercise judicial restraint and refuse to entertain appeals against discretionary interim orders when the substantive issues are currently sub judice before the court of first instance, ensuring the sanctity of the hierarchical adjudicatory process is maintained.

ORDER :

FARJAND ALI, J.

Grievance of the Case

1. The instant Civil Special Appeal (Writ) has been instituted by the appellant assailing the proceedings arising out of denial of renewal of excise licence and the consequential allotment of the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 4.

Factual Background

2. The appellant is an excise licensee holding Shop Code No. 1306051 for Wards No. 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of Padampur. It is averred that due to technical glitches in the server maintained by the Excise Department, several licensees, including the appellant, were unable to fulfill the guarantee requirements for the month of September, 2025.

2.1. Despite absence of any attributable fault, the respondents, vide order dated 30.10.2025, sought to impose a penal condition requiring such licensees to lift 1.5 times the quantity of liquor equivalent to the alleged deficiency.

2.2. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23713/2025 (Shakti vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 06.12.2025, issued notices and restrained the respondents from taking coercive action.

2.3. Subsequently, the appellant attempted renewal of the licence on multiple occasions in February, 2026; however, the system declined renewal citing outstanding dues, which were fluctuating and inconsistent in nature.

2.4. In the interregnum, the respondents proceeded to entertain applications for allotment and, vide proceedings dated 17.02.2026, allotted the shop in question in favour of respondent No. 4. Aggrieved by the said subsequent development, the appellant instituted S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6202/2026 along with a stay application. In the said proceedings, the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 24.03.2026, while issuing notice as well as notice of the stay application and granting time to the respondents to file reply, directed that the allotment so made shall remain subject to the final outcome of the writ petition, thereby keeping the rights and contentions of the parties open for adjudication.

Submissions on Behalf of the Appellant

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the alleged default for September, 2025 arose solely due to technical glitches in the Excise Department’s server, and no fault can be attributed to the appellant. Despite this, the respondents imposed an onerous and arbitrary condition vide order dated 30.10.2025, compelling licensees to lift 1.5 times the liquor quantity.

3.1. It is contended that this action was challenged in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23713/2025, wherein this Court, vide order dated06.12.2025, granted protection against coercive action. The respondents, however, have indirectly defeated the said protection by denying renewal of licence.

3.2. Counsel further submits that the appellant made bona fide attempts to renew the licence within time, but the same was declined due to fluctuating and inconsistent demands reflected in the system, demonstrating arbitrariness.

3.3. It is also urged that despite being informed of the interim order, the respondents insisted upon deposit of the disputed amount. The subsequent allotment in favour of respondent No. 4, during pendency of the writ petition, is stated to be illegal and prejudicial to the appellant’s rights.

Submissions on Behalf of the Respondents

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the interim protection granted by this Court was limited only to the dues of September, 2025 and did not extend to subsequent defaults.

4.1. It is contended that the appellant remained in continuous arrears for later periods, and despite notice dated 04.12.2025