JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. The instant batch of Civil Writ Petitions arises out of a common factual background, involves common questions of law and fact, and challenges identical action of the Excise Department, Government of Rajasthan. Since the controversy involved in all the matters is substantially similar, the same are being decided together by this common judgment for the purpose of analogous adjudication.

1.1. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6017/2025 (Jamana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is being treated as the lead case, and the facts are being taken therefrom.

1.2. It is further clarified that though arguments in the batch were heard together, the matters were reserved on different dates. While most of the writ petitions were reserved on a common date, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7399/2025 was reserved for judgment separately on 05.02.2026. However, as the issues involved are common, all the matters are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:

“In view of above it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court may by appropriate writ order or direction:

a) Quash and set-aside clause 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the Excise and Temperance Policy 2025-2029 (Annx-1) as being contrary to the Excise Policy as well as the Rajasthan Excise Act, Rajasthan Excise Rules as well as the Constitution of India;

b) Direct the respondents to renew the license of the petitioner’s shop and not to create any hindrance in the operation of the licensed vend of the petitioner. If need be the notice dated 25.02.2025 (Annx-4) qua petitioners shop may kindly be quashed and set aside;

c) Any other relief, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.”

3. The present writ petition arises out of the Rajasthan Excise & Temperance Policy, 2025–2029 issued by the Finance (Excise) Department, Government of Rajasthan vide notification dated 29.01.2025, whereby the State Government introduced a revised framework for settlement of retail liquor shops for the financial years 2025–2029.

3.1. Under the said policy, while retaining the total number of retail liquor shops in the State at 7665, a system of district-wise “clusters” was introduced for the first time. As per Clause 2.2.1 of the policy, shops were to be grouped into clusters on a contiguous basis, comprising minimum one and maximum five shops.

3.2. The policy further provided an option of renewal to existing licensees for the financial year 2025–26, subject to fulfillment of prescribed eligibility conditions, including enhancement of the Annual Guarantee Amount by 10% over the previous year.

3.3. The controversy in the present petition centers around Clauses 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the policy. As per Clause 2.2.6, renewal of licenses in a district was made conditional upon receipt of renewal applications from at least 70% of the eligible licensees in the district, and further subject to all shops within a particular cluster applying for renewal. Clause 2.2.7 stipulates that if renewal applications are received from less than 70% of eligible licensees in a district, then all shops in that district are liable to be settled through cluster-wise e-auction/e-tender. Clause 2.2.8 provides that where one or more shops within a cluster are not renewed, opportunity shall be given to existing licensees within the cluster to take such unrenewed shops; failing which the entire cluster shall be put to auction.

3.4. The petitioner, who was an existing licensee of a Country Liquor and IMFL/Beer Composite Retail Off Vend in District Barmer, submitted an application for renewal within the prescribed time along with the requisite renewal fee.

3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the cluster in which her shop was included, one shop remained unrenewed. In view thereof, and after issuance of notice dated 25.02.2025, the petitioner’s