ORDER

DATE OF CONCLUSION OF ARGUMENTS 10/06/2026
DATE ON WHICH ORDER IS RESERVED 10/06/2026
FULL ORDER OR OPERATIVE PART Full Order

BY THE COURT:- (AS PER HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE FARJAND ALI)

1. The present Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred assailing the order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8940/2026, whereby the effect and operation of the order (Annex.12) passed by the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, concerning relocation of the appellant's liquor vend, came to be stayed.

2. The factual backdrop, in brief, is that the appellant, being a successful allottee and licensee under the prevailing excise regime, was granted permission by the competent authority for shifting the location of his liquor shop from the existing site to another site. The order permitting such relocation was admittedly issued by the District Excise Officer after obtaining approval from the competent authorities at the Headquarter level and upon satisfaction of the statutory requirements governing such relocation. Aggrieved by the said order of relocation, the writ petitioner approached the learned Single Judge, whereupon an ad-interim order came to be passed staying the operation of the relocation order.

2.1. When the present appeal came up for consideration before this Court on an earlier date, certain factual aspects were found to be of considerable significance for proper adjudication of the controversy. Consequently, this Court directed the District Excise Officer to place on record a specific affidavit clarifying as to whether the relocated site falls within the same cluster under the applicable excise policy and whether the appellant had already shifted and commenced operation of the liquor vend at the changed location. Pursuant thereto, an affidavit sworn by the concerned District Excise Officer, Jodhpur has been placed on record.

2.2. The affidavit unequivocally discloses that the relocation order was issued after obtaining requisite approval from the Headquarter level authorities and that the newly approved site falls within the very same cluster as contemplated under the governing excise policy. The affidavit further reveals that the relocation did not entail any alteration of the cluster, licence entitlement, or territorial allocation and was merely a change in the physical situs of the shop within the permissible framework recognized by the policy. The factual assertions contained in the affidavit have been brought to the notice of the Court during the course of hearing and have remained substantially uncontroverted.

3. We have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order as well as the material made available to this Court.

4. Having bestowed anxious consideration to the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the respective parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that the appeal arises from an ad-interim order passed at the threshold stage of the proceedings. The writ petition itself remains pending consideration before the learned Single Judge and the stay application filed therein is yet to attain final adjudication. In such circumstances, judicial propriety demands that this Court refrain from entering into an elaborate examination of the merits of the rival claims lest any observation made herein prejudices either side during the pendency of the writ proceedings. Nevertheless, while maintaining the a