The Court dismissed the writ petition by applying the settled precedent of Babu Khan v. State of Rajasthan, refusing to grant surrender or rebate to a liquor vendor on business risk grounds.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:36113]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16397/2023
Smt. Guddi Meena D/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Motipura, Ward No. 2 Chhayan, Tehsil-Suhagpura District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Abhinav Jain |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : - |
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
02/09/2024
“40. The view taken by Madras High Court in The South India Spinner Association & Ors. Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Limited & Ors.: 2020 WritLR 510, treating the lock-down as force
(2 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:36113]
[CW-16397/2023]
majeure event, in my humble opinion, goes contrary to the view as expressed by the Supreme Court in Energy Watchdog Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors and other connected cases (supra) and the judgments cited therein.
41. Similarly, the view taken by the Punjab & Haryana High Court also does not take into consideration the law as laid down in Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. ISSAC Peter (supra) and in the facts of the present cases, where the State Government has already provided reduction/rebate of 30% and 15%, as above, this Court would not direct the State Authorities to grant reduction/rebate as prayed by the petitioners.
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's-eye 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
(3 of 3)
[2024:RJ-JD:36113]
[CW-16397/2023]
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.
43. 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.
44. All these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pendingapplications stand disposed of. No costs.”
(DINESH MEHTA),J
7-raksha/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the same legal principles settled in a previous bench regarding liquor vendor rebates apply to the present petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Babu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.Followed¶14
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7543/2021 (Babu Khan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.)
The South India Spinner Association & Ors. Vs. Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution LimitedDistinguished¶15
The South India Spinner Association & Ors. Vs. The Chairman cum Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Generation & Distribution Limited & Ors.: 2020 WritLR 510
Energy Watchdog Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory CommissionReferred¶15
Energy Watchdog Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission & Ors
Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. ISSAC PeterReferred¶19
Assistant Excise Commissioner Vs. ISSAC Peter
Smt. Guddi Meena
State Of Rajasthan
DINESH MEHTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
