Dismissed

Rishabh Kachhwaha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Oct 2021CW/8013/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed multiple connected writ petitions challenging the rejection of petitions by liquor vendors seeking rebates on payments. The Court ruled that commercial risks and bidding errors are the entrepreneur's domain and rebates are an exclusive administrative discretion of the State, not maintainable via writ jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

All writ petitions were dismissed and stay applications were disposed of.

Rishabh Kachhwaha Vs State of Rajasthan — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8421/2021

¶3

Mithlesh Suwalka S/o Shri Madan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 29 Sector No. 11, District Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

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

¶8

District Excise Officer, Udaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8013/2021

¶12

Rishabh Kachhwaha S/o Sanjay Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Nagauri Bera Mandore, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶13

Rukman Construction Company, Through Proprietor Rukman Kanwar W/o Mahendra Singh R/o Village Barbata, Tehsil Khinvsar, District Nagaur.

¶14

Vikram Singh S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Rajputo Ka Bas, Achani, Acheena, Nagaur, Kheenvsar (Raj.).

¶15

Mahendra Dahiya S/o Jasraj Dahiya, Aged About 36 Years, Village Khiyasariya, Tehsil Dechu, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶16

Chhotu Singh S/o Deep Singh, Aged About 51 Years, 69, Old Police Line, Raika Bag, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶17

Gurmit Singh S/o Surjit Singh, Aged About 49 Years, 8 Nirankari Bhawan Kheruwala 22P, Ganganagar (Raj.).

¶18

Naresh Gehlot S/o Brahm Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Ward No. 62, Magra Punjala, Bawari Bera, Jodhpur.

¶19

Vinod Parihar S/o Prem Singh Parihar, Aged About 26 Years, Bodiyala Bera, Mata Ka Than, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur.

----Petitioners

(2 of 5)

[CW-8421/2021]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Excise Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶25

Commissioner, Department Of Excise, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.

¶26

District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

(3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8438/2021

¶29

Ashok Chittora S/o Shri Gehri Lal Ji, Aged About 50 Years, R/o 201, A-Block, Sector No. 14, Udaipur, District Udaipur.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶33

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

¶34

District Excise Officer, Udaipur.

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

(4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9248/2021

¶37

Bijendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Suva Lal Meena, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Manpura, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

¶38

----Petitioner

¶39

Versus

¶40

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶41

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

¶42

District Excise Officer, Pratapgarh (Rajasthan).

¶43

----Respondents

¶44

(5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9403/2021

¶45

Subhash Chander S/o Shri Kanwarsain, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

¶46

----Petitioner

¶47

Versus

¶48

(3 of 5) [CW-8421/2021]

¶49

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶50

The Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Gumaniwala, Panchwati Udaipur (Raj.).

¶51

The District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶52

----Respondents

¶53

(6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9417/2021

¶54

Smt. Suman W/o Shri Jaichand, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶55

----Petitioner

¶56

Versus

¶57

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶58

The Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Gumaniwala, Panchwati Udaipur (Raj.).

¶59

The District Excise Officer, Excise Department , Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶60

----Respondents

¶61

(7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9421/2021

¶62

Jaichand S/o Shri Murlidhar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Deeplana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶63

----Petitioner

¶64

Versus

¶65

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶66

The Excise Commissioner, Excise Department, Gumaniwala, Panchwati Udaipur (Raj.).

¶67

The District Excise Officer, Excise Department , Hanumangarh (Raj.)

----Respondents

(4 of 5)

[CW-8421/2021]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vipin Makkad Mr. Moti Singh Mr. DS Gharsana

¶72

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General, assisted by Mr. Kartik Lodha Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG assisted by Ms. Akshiti Singhvi Mr. Girish Sankhla

¶73

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶74

Judgment

¶75

27/10/2021

¶76

Mr. Singhvi, learned Advocate General, appearing for the State submits that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by judgment dated 27.08.2021 passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions led by SBCWP No.7543/2021 (Babu Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.).

¶77

Learned counsel for the petitioners are not in a position to dispute the aforesaid positions of facts and law.

¶78

In the case of Babu Khan (supra), this Court has held thus:

¶79

“42. Liquor as a business involves risks. An entrepreneur is required to take risks which is inevitable. Loss and profit is also inevitable part of business. In essence, when the petitioners took a risk to submit their bids, they were actually taking a gamble. When a person knows the risk and reward relationship, it is business. When a person accepts profit without adequate knowledge, then it is gambling. All the petitioners had full knowledge of the pandemic with which the entire State was grappling. It is with the pigeon'seye that they self estimated that the pandemic has gone. Loss caused to them cannot be put on the shoulders of the of the Government as with the open eyes they have submitted higher bids and accepted the conditions of the policy. They cannot now turn around and claim as a right from this Court for a mandamus as against the State.

¶80

(5 of 5)

¶81

[CW-8421/2021]

¶82

Before concluding, this Court, however, deems it appropriate to observe that granting of rebate in making payments is an exclusive discretion of the State and falls within the administrative domain of the State Government who has laid down the excise policy. The State Government would, therefore, be the best to take a decision whether further reduction/rebate is required to be granted to the liquor vendors. Leaving it open for the petitioners to take up their cause before the State Government, this Court is of the firm view that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for such demands.”

¶83

Following the judgment in case of Babu Khan (supra), all these writ petitions are dismissed.

¶84

Stay applications also stand disposed of.

¶85

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶86

12-18-Rahul/-

Rishabh Kachhwaha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rishabh Kachhwaha 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chandra Vaishnav Vs State of Rajasthan

Deva Ram @ Dev Raj Vs State of Rajasthan

Sukhlal Teli Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajesh Vs Union of India

Mithlesh Suwalka Vs State of Rajasthan

Ashok Chittora Vs State of Rajasthan