Dismissed

Rahul Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Mar 2021CW/17917/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a notice regarding overcharging of IMFL/Beer prices. The court rejected a request to vacate an interim order from a coordinate bench and directed respondents to decide the matter within one month after providing an opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to decide the matter within one month after providing an opportunity of hearing.

Rahul Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17917/2019

¶4

Rahul Choudhary S/o Shri Pushkar, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Choudhary, R/o Village Nar, Tehsil Girwa, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary (Finance), Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Secretary, Finance (Revenue), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

District Excise Officer, Udaipur Aabkari Bhawan, Udaipur. 5. Excise Inspector, Circle Udaipur West, Udaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. MS Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla

¶13

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Order

¶15

09/03/2021

¶16

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

¶17

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.

¶18

The order aforesaid reads as follows :-

¶19

“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.

¶20

(2 of 2)

¶21

[CW-17917/2019]

¶22

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.

¶23

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).

¶24

Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.”

¶25

Counsel for the parties candidly admits that order squarely covers the issue in hand.

¶26

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.

¶27

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

¶28

39-Nirmala/Sanjay/-

Rahul Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mana Ram Vs Jodhpur Development Authority

Smt. Mamta Bansal Vs Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Shri Guru Teg Bahadur Sahib Society Vs the Presiding Officer, Rent Tribunal

Nikki Bala Arora Vs Kan Oxford Convent International School

Ramesh Kumar Vs Hiranand

Gram Panchayat Salwa Khurd Vs State of Rajasthan