Partly allowed

Baby Bai v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC21 Apr 2023SAW/192/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against Division Bench order on refund of excise licence fee. Court allows appeal inter se by applying the recent precedent Raju Singh, directing petitioners to deposit disputed amounts with the Excise Department within four weeks for release of security.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to deposit disputed amount with respondent Excise Department within four weeks for release of security and other applicable amounts.

Baby Bai Vs State of Rajasthan — Consumer Protection | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJD/011272]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 192/2021

¶4

Baby Bai W/o Dal Chand, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Mulaba Gavadi, Udaipur.

¶5

----Appellant

¶6

Versus

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

District Excise Officer, Udaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Rishabh Handa.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General,
	through VC assisted by Mr. K.S. Lodha.
	Mr. Girish Sankhla.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI

¶13

Order

¶14

21/04/2023

¶15

In peculiar circumstances, the defect(s) pointed out by the Office are waived.

¶16

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11.01.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions, led by Balveer Bana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No. 11384/2020 and other connected writ petitions.

¶17

Learned counsel for the appellant at the outset made submissions that several petitions were filed before Single Bench and few matters were also filed in Division Bench seeking to

[2023/RJJD/011272]

[SAW-192/2021]

(2 of 3)

question the validity of excise policy, however, the relief claimed was similar and the Division Bench in Raju Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: D.B. CWP No. 3239/2021, decided on 11.05.2022, has based on the order dated 22.11.2021 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Het Ram Meel & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SLP No. 837-838/2021, decided the writ petition and, therefore, the present Special Appeal Writ may also be decided in terms of the order passed in the case of Raju Singh ( supra ).

¶22

Learned Advocate General does not dispute the fact of passing of the order in the case of Raju Singh ( supra ) and submits that in case, similar order is passed, he has no objection.

¶23

In the case of Raju Singh ( supra ), a Co-ordiante Bench inter alia observed and ordered as under:-

¶24

“The instant writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging the notice issued in pursuance of clauses 4.6 and 3.18 of the Excise Temperance Policy 2020-21 and to refund the licence fee received from the petitioners for the period, for which the shop remained closed owing to orders passed by the State Government and the Central Government.

¶25

Mr. Girish Kumar Sankhla, learned counsel representing the respondents, urged that a bunch of writ petitions led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10936/2020 (Satveer Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) involving identical controversy has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur vide order dated 08.12.2020 and hence, the instant writ petitions may also be dismissed.

¶26

However, Mr. Rishabh Handa, associate to Mr. Girish Joshi, learned counsel representing the petitioners, submitted that the order passed by the learned Division Bench in the case of Satveer Chaudhary (supra) has been assailed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.837-838/2021 (Het Ram Meel & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.), wherein a direction has been given to release the security amounts and other applicable amounts to the litigants therein subject to the condition that they deposit the disputed amounts with the Excise Department within a period of four weeks.

(3 of 3)

[2023/RJJD/011272]

[SAW-192/2021]

Accordingly, it is hereby directed that the petitioners shall deposit the disputed amount with the respondent Excise Department within a period of four weeks from today, whereupon the security amount and all other applicable amounts shall be released in favour of the petitioners in accordance with law. The rights of the petitioners shall be governed by the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Het Ram Meel (supra).

¶31

The writ petitions are disposed off in these terms. The stay applications are also disposed off.”

¶32

In view of the submissions made, the Special Appeal Writ filed by the appellant is disposed of with similar directions as given in the case of Raju Singh ( supra ).

¶33

(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J

¶34

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶35

12-DJ/-

Baby Bai v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baby Bai 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

Mariya Paliwala Vs State of Rajasthan

Pal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Jhilmil Mewara Vs State of Rajasthan

Vikram Suhalka Vs State of Rajasthan

Mukesh Sisodiya Vs State of Rajasthan