##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:21016]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15577/2025

Dushyant Kumar S/o Shri Puranmal Yadav, Aged About 36 Years,

R/o House No. 1071, Bhur Pahdi Gaon, Kishangarh Bas,

Rajasthan, 301405.

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through Joint Secretary,

Department of Finance (Excise), Government of

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Excise Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan,

Udaipur.

3. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar.

4. Excise Inspector, Excise Department, Alwar East.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Malani

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kapil Prakash Mathur, AAG with

Mr. Saurabh Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA

Order

19/05/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with

a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 29.11.2022

passed by the respondent No.3, the recovery notice dated

22.11.2023 issued by respondent No.3 and all other consequential

proceedings thereto, whereby the liquor licence of the petitioner

has been cancelled and recovery of penalty for shortfall has been

initiated against the petitioner.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that proper

service of the alleged notices has not been effected and thus, the

[2026:RJ-JP:21016] (2 of 3) [CW-15577/2025]

petitioner was not having any knowledge of the alleged demand

raised by respondent No.3. He further submits that he came to

know about the passing of the aforesaid order and notice only

when the bank account of the petitioner was frozen. He further

submits that the aforesaid orders, notices and action of

respondent No.3 are contrary to the mandate of Section 76A of

the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956. He therefore prays that the

impugned order as well as the consequential recovery proceedings

being perverse, may kindly be set aside.

3. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents who has

appeared on an advance copy, submits that the proper course for

the petitioner to assail the order dated 29.11.2022 was filing an

appeal before the learned Excise Commissioner, and accordingly

prays that the present writ petition may kindly be dismissed.

4. Heard the submissions made at bar, and perused the

material available on record.

5. From a bare perusal of the record, it is evident that a

cancellation order dated 29.11.2022 was passed by the District

Excise Officer, Alwar and thereafter, appropriate recovery

proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was not

having sufficient knowledge of passing of aforesaid order dated

29.11.2022 and at the same time the petitioner had already

submitted an application dated 30.09.2022 for surrendering his

licence before the Excise Officer, Alwar.

7. From a further perusal of the record, it is also revealed that

the impugned order dated 29.11.2022, passed against the

petitioner, is subject to an appeal under Section 9A of the

[2026:RJ-JP:21016] (3 of 3) [CW-15577/2025]

Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. The petitioner without preferring the

said appeal under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950,

has preferred the present writ petition. In such circumstances, this

Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.

8. At the same time, the petitioner shall be at liberty to assail

the impugned cancellation order dated 29.11.2022 passed by the

District Excise Officer, Alwar, by filing an appeal before the learned

Excise Commissioner under Section 9A of the Rajasthan Excise

Act, 1950 with condonation of delay, if so advised.

9. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby

dismissed.

10. All pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

11. However, it is made clear that in case the aforesaid appeal is

filed with an application for condonation of delay, it is expected

from the learned Appellate Court to decide the matter on merits

instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay. At the

same time, it is expected that the learned Appellate Court will

decide all