Connected writ petitions challenging IMFL/beer overcharging notices taken to a condition precedent order dismissing them. Petitioners directed to allow hearing opportunity to respondents to decide within one month.
Writ petitions dismissed with direction to respondents to decide matter within one month after providing opportunity of hearing.
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. 221/2020
Gaurav S/o Shiv Kumar, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Yogi, R/o Shop No.6, Zone No.2, Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17344/2019
Sunita Mewara W/o Rajendra, Aged About 32 Years, Kekri Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17348/2019
Amit Survanshi S/o Chandramohan Suryvanshi, Aged About 34
(2 of 5)
[CW-221/2020]
Years, 216 D Block Sector, 14 Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17350/2019
Rajendra Singh Ashiya S/o Girwar Singh, Aged About 39 Years, 12 Kotadi, Moriyon Ki Kariyan Kadia, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18139/2019
Randheer Singh S/o Shree Darshan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Shop No. 2, J.d.b., Group No. 16, Anoopgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
(3 of 5)
[CW-221/2020]
(Finance), Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18165/2019
Bhanwar Kanwar W/o Shree Dileep Singh, Aged About 44 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o 1 Dam, Post Office- Ratnewala, 1 Dam, Srivijaynagar, Sri-Ganganagar, (Raj.). 335704.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1381/2020
Sukhdev Choudhari S/o Shree Chhotaram, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Khhokhariya Banad, Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(4 of 5)
[CW-221/2020]
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Narottam Sen For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Sankhla
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order
17/02/2021
In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.
Counsel for the respondent informs the Court that controversy involved in this petition has already been adjudicated by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (Jaipur Bench) in bunch of cases led by Smt. Anju Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18549/2019) on 21.01.2020.
The order aforesaid reads as follows :-
“By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the notice issued on various dates (Annexure-3) with regard to overcharging the price of IMFL/Beer.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that apprehension of the petitioners is that the respondents will not act in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, therefore the petitioners under this impression have directly approached this court at the notice stage. Counsel further submits that the respondents be directed to hear the petitioners and decide the matter in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act,1950. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General submits that the reply submitted by the petitioners to the notice (Annexure-3)issued to each of the petitioner, will be considered by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.
(5 of 5)
[CW-221/2020]
In that view of the matter, all the writ petitions stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter within a period of one month after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners with regard to the notice (Annexure-3).
Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.”
Counsel for the parties candidly admits that order squarely covers the issue in hand.
Accordingly, the application under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order as well as the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the matter within a period of one month after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioners with regard to the notice.
Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected
file.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.
23-29 Sanjay/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can invoke writ jurisdiction to challenge an alleged overpricing notice without a prior opportunity of hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Anju Meena Vs. State of RajasthanFollowed¶83
Smt. Anju Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18549/2019)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gaurav S/o Shiv Kumar
State Of Rajasthan
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
