Single Judge Bench held that a Petitioner entering into an Excise license contract cannot challenge its terms under Writ Jurisdiction, especially when terms align with Directive Principles and the Petitioner lacked clean hands. Petition dismissed.
The writ petition, stay petition, and all pending applications were dismissed.
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.
[2023/RJJD/014826]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4275/2021
Bindu Kalal D/o Ashok Kumar Kalal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Post Ghat Ka Gaon, Tehsil Sagwara, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Himanshu Chowdhary |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI Order
11/05/2023
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:-
“29. We have considered the contentions,
(2 of 3)
[2023/RJJD/014826]
[CW-4275/2021]
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 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.
(3 of 3)
[2023/RJJD/014826]
[CW-4275/2021]
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.
2 . In light of the aforequoted order, the instant writ petition is dismissed in the same terms. Stay petition and all pending applications also stand disposed of.
(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J
209-amit/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Petitioner can challenge the terms of an Excise Policy contract in the Writ Jurisdiction.
Whether the Excise Policy 2020-21 is violative of Article 47 of the Constitution of India.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Satveer Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10936/2020Followed¶1
Abhishek Jaiswal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.948/2016)Referred¶23
Har Shankar & Ors. vs. The Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner & Ors. (AIR 1975 SC 1121)Distinguished¶24
State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. M/S C.K.M. & Company (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2007)Distinguished¶24
Bindu Kalal
State Of Rajasthan
Nupur Bhati
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
