Dismissed

Mool Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Apr 2023CW/2931/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge dismissed the writ petition by relying on a connected Division Bench order. The court held that licensees who entered into contracts with clear terms regarding fees for shortlifting cannot later challenge these terms or claim the policy violates Article 47.

What did the court decide?

The instant writ petition and all pending applications were dismissed.

Mool Singh Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011107]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2931/2020

¶4

Mool Singh S/o Shri Narpat Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ridmalsar, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

The Excise Commissioner, Udaipur. 3. The District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devesh A. Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla

¶11

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

20/04/2023

¶14

1 . Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment dated 04.04.2023, passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Satveer Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10936/2020 and other connected writ petitions. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:-

¶15

“29. We have considered the contentions,

¶16

Admittedly, petitioners have entered into a contract and as per the terms and conditions of the license, they are required to follow the conditions imposed by the respondent and the terms of the Excise Policy. As per the terms of the Excise Policy 2020- 21, petitioners were required to sell a particular quantity of IMFL/Beer and in case of shortlifting, they were required to pay the amount

[2023/RJJD/011107]

[CW-2931/2020]

(2 of 3)

as Additional Minimum Special Vend Fees. Further, they were required to sell 10% more than the last year's quantity. Petitioners have entered into the 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

The Excise Policy for the year 2015-16 was challenged before the Rajasthan High Court in the case of "Abhishek Jaiswal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.948/2016)." The matter pertained to shortlifting of IMFL/Beer. Division Bench held that charging of Additional Vend Fees on account of shortlifting of IMFL/Beer, cannot be said to be a tax or penalty and the same is supported by Subordinate Legislation.

¶23

In the case of "Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 1121), Apex Court has held that in a concluded contract, Writ Petition is not an appropriate remedy for impeaching contractual obligations. In, "State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/S C.K.M. & Company (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2007)" there was condition in the agreement that any kind of stoppage of mining operations shall not have any bearing or impact upon the recovery of royalty. The Writ Petitioners in that case had entered into an agreement for collection of royalty which contained the aforesaid language of absolute liability irrespective of the status of the mining operations. The Court observed that in those circumstances, no relief could have been granted to the petitioners as the law of equity, without any basis, cannot override specific conditions in the contract: In the present case in hand also, petitioners have entered into a contract, wherein, they have agreed to pay Additional Special Vend Fees for shortlifting and the same cannot be challenged in the Writ Jurisdiction.

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/011107]

[CW-2931/2020]

The basis for challenge in this case is that the Excise Policy 2020-21 is contrary to Article 47 of the Constitution of India. Article 47 of the Constitution of India deals with the Directive Principles of State Policy. The State is bound to raise the level of nutrition and standard of living and to improve public health. As per the reply 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.

¶28

Petitioners having entered into the contract with open eyes, cannot now challenge the terms of the contract under the Writ Jurisdiction. There are as many as 5543 groups and number of shops are 6665. The number of IMFL shops are 1000. Out of so many number of groups/shops, only the present petitioners have approached the Court.

¶29

It is further evident that the petitioners have not come with clean hands, as suitable relaxation and rebates were given by the State to the petitioners which have not been mentioned in the Writ Petitions and interim order has been obtained from the Hon'ble Court by concealing the material facts.

¶30

In view of the above, we do not find any merits in the present Civil Writ Petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Copy of this order be placed in the connected files.”

¶32

2 . In light of the aforequoted order, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the same terms. All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶33

(DR.NUPUR BHATI),J

¶34

118-/Devesh/-

Mool Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mool Singh 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

Kartikey Rathore (Minor) Vs Union of India

Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

M/S. Hariom Transport Company Vs Hdfc Bank Ltd.

Rajesh Barasa Vs State of Rajasthan

Satya Narayan Vs Askaran Singh

Shri Rajendra Sansthan/ Bhinmal Vs State of Rajasthan