HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22634/2025 Ms. Nandini Balotiya D/o Shri Ashok Balotiya, aged about 22 years, R/o 2368 Sant Ravidas Nagar Bhadwasiya Jodhpur, 342007.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Finance, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

3. District Exicise Officer, Barmer.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shubham Modi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi.

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

Order

19/11/2025

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner presses earnestly for the grant of an interim order restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner.

2. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for the respondents requests time to file a reply to both the writ petition and the stay petition. However, as counsel for the petitioner insists on immediate consideration for an interim order, arguments have been heard at length on the stay petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is willing and ready to deposit the short-fall of the minimum guarantee amount for the months of May 2025 and October 2025. With respect to the penalty/shortfall of the minimum guarantee amount for the month of October 2025, learned counsel contends that there is no requirement for any further deposit, as excess sum of Rs. 5,94,389/- is already lying deposited with the respondents. Additionally, counsel asserts that the respondents have demonstrated a tendency to terminate the licence soon after issuing notice within a short period of three days, and on this basis, seeks sufficient protection for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the department has raised illegal demand of short-fall of the minimum guarantee amount for the month of October, 2025, demanding Rs.11,91,273/- as the petitioner’s guaranteed sales / lifting, amounted to Rs.23,75,962/-, which is in excess of the monthly guarantee by Rs.5,89,887/-.

4. E-converso, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities to deposit the short-fall of the minimum guarantee amount for May 2025, as evidenced by the notices dated 02.06.2025, 24.06.2025, 15.07.2025, 03.09.2025, and 06.10.2025 and despite these multiple opportunities being afforded to the petitioner the petitioner failed to deposit the requisite amounts. It is further submitted that the claim of any excess deposit is unfounded, and that no such amount is lying with the respondents as alleged by the petitioner. He also contends that the writ petition is not maintainable against the notice dated 11.11.2025 (Annexure 5), as vide this notice the respondents have not taken any action against the petitioner.

5. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, this Court finds that there is no dispute that, as of today, the respondents have only issued a notice requiring the petitioner to deposit the shortfall of the minimum guarantee amount within a stipulated period. However, no final order regarding the cancellation of the licence has been passed.

6. It is also evident from the pleadings that there is a factual dispute between the parties regarding whether any excess amount is being held by the respondents, which could be adjusted against the dues for the month of October 2025.

7. The petitioner’s apprehension that the licence will be cancelled at this stage is speculative. If and when any final adverse order, including the cancellation of the licence, is passed, the petitioner will be entitled to challenge the said order before the appropriate forum, in accordance with the law. However, at present, the impugned communication is merely a notice requiring the petitioner to deposit the amount specified therein. The petitioner is fr