[2026:RJ-JD:11128]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5139/2026 Shoma Ram Bhamu S/o Shera Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Dhaderu Bhamuwan, Tehsil- Bidasar, District Churu, Pin-302020.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Rajasthan, Udaipur.

3. The District Excise Officer, District Churu, Churu.

4. The Excise Inspector, Sujangarh Circle, District Churu.

5. Kanta Devi W/o Jagdish Khudiya, Proprietor/owner Of Khudiya Hotel Bar And Restaurant, Bidasar, District Churu.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajak Khan Mr. Tilok Chand For Respondent(s) : -

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

06/03/2026 By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It, is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition filed by petitioner may kindly be allowed and accepted and-

1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, declare the proposed grant of a bar license to Respondent No. 04 for the establishment "Khudiya Hotel Bar & Restaurant" as illegal and arbitrary, as the proposed location sits within a distance of 60 meters from the Petitioner's established shop, thereby violating the mandatory distance standards and the principle of revenue protection set by the State Government.

2. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, quash and set aside any application or provisional approval for a bar license in favor of Respondent No. 04, as the hotel establishment fails to meet the mandatory requirement of having a minimum number of functional rooms required for such a license under the prevailing government policy.

3. By an appropriate writ, order or direction restrain the Respondent Authorities from issuing any competing liquor or bar license within the prohibited perimeter of the petitioner's shop, ensuring that the Petitioner's business interests and the massive revenue guarantee already accepted by the State are protected from unfair and illegal competition.

4. By an appropriate writ, order or direction direct Respondent No. 04 to immediately remove all unauthorized branding and signage displayed at the hotel premises that suggests the operation of a bar without a valid and lawful license.

5. By an appropriate writ, order or direction command the Respondent Authorities to conduct a fresh physical verification of the proposed site to confirm its actual distance from the Petitioner's shop and ensure total compliance with the state's distance norms.

6. Any other order(s) as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner; and/or ...”

2. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court finds that the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the proposal of the respondent department to grant a bar licence in favour of respondent No.4 for establishing a hotel bar and restaurant near the liquor shop of the petitioner. The challenge has been made on the ground that the permission to open a bar and restaurant in the vicinity would adversely affect the petitioner’s business and may reduce the revenue generated from his liquor shop.

3. This Court repeatedly asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out any rule, guideline or policy of the Excise Department which prohibits opening of a bar near a liquor shop. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the object of granting permission to open a bar is altogether different and distinct from granting a licence to open and establish a liquor shop. However, learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to show any prohibitory provision, guideline or policy issued by the respondent department in this regard.

4. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

5. Stay application and