A licence holder challenged penalties for failing to meet liquor sales targets imposed under the Excise Policy 2020-21. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding it covered by a recent Division Bench decision which ruled that contractual terms agreed to with open eyes cannot be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1093/2021
Chankya Sharma S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, By Caste- Brahmin, Resident Of Ward No. - 46, Near New Nagar Parisar, Hanumangarh Town, District - Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RC Joshi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Sankhla (through VC)
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment / Order
12/07/2021
Learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the controversy involved in this writ petition is squarely covered by the decision dated 12.01.2021 rendered by this Court in Pushkar Lal Nai vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10867/2020) and other connected matters.
The petitioner is the licence holders of the shops of selling Indian made foreign liquor and country made liquor in the State of Rajasthan. He has filed this writ petition being aggrieved with the action of the respondent –Excise Department of imposing penalty upon the petitioner for the reason that he has failed to achieve the
(2 of 4)
[CW-1093/2021]
target of selling the liquor as per the conditions of the agreement executed between them and the respondent – Excise Department or in other words for selling less quantity of liquor from the fixed target. The Excise Department has imposed the said penalties and demanded the same while invoking the provisions of Clauses 3.18(i) & 4.6 of the Excise and Temperance Policy for 2020-21 (hereinafter referred as “Excise Policy 2020-21”).
Mr Girish Sankhla has submitted that Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Satveer Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No.10936/2020) and other connected writ petitions decided on 08.12.2020 has dismissed the challenge of Clauses 3.18 (i) & 4.6 of the Excise Policy 202021 and the controversy raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the said decision.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute the fact that the challenge to the Clauses 3.18(i) & 4.6 of the Excise Policy 2020-21 has been failed before the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench.
The Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Satveer Chaudhary, and other connected writ petitions (supra) has held as under:
“29. We have considered the contentions.
(3 of 4)
[CW-1093/2021]
contract with open eyes and now, they cannot challenge the terms of the Excise Policy 202021, on the ground that the clauses are contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution of India and against the objects of the Excise Policy. 31. It is a clear case of the respondent that they are duty bound to supply good quality product to the consumers and if restrictions are not imposed, there would be illegal transportation of liquor in the State and bad quality product would find place in the market and would cause revenue loss as well to the Government.
(4 of 4)
[CW-1093/2021]
submitted by the State, State wants to provide good quality liquor to the consumers and to avoid pilfering of liquor from other States, which may not be quality product, State has put these conditions in the Excise Policy, hence, the same cannot be said to be violative of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.
In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed in terms of the judgment dated 08.12.2020 passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in Satveer Chaudhary and other connected writ petitions (supra).
Stay petition also stands dismissed
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Surabhii/63-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can challenge the penalty imposed for failing to meet liquor sales targets under an existing agreement via writ jurisdiction.
Whether the Excise Policy conditions are violative of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pushkar Lal Nai vs. State of Rajasthan (SB Civil Writ Petition No. 10867/2020)Referred¶15
Satveer Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No.10936/2020)Followed¶2037
Abhishek Jaiswal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition NO.948/2016)Referred¶28
Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 1121)Referred¶29
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/S C.K.M. & Company (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2007)Referred¶29
Chankya Sharma
State Of Rajasthan
VIJAY BISHNOI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
