PUKHRAJ SHISHODIA MURLIDHAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LIQUOR or alcohol, has many stories and comments. Drinkers' paradise and tee-totallers' taboo, this commodity, has many social evils attached to it. It is not only a very attractive source of Revenue for State Government through Excise Department, but large auction bids in yearly contracts lifted by liquor barons and contractors makes several eyes wide open. It has certainly compelled the State Government to shift its policy decisions of giving away contracts to fetch maximum exclusive privilege price every year. These days each shop is separately auctioned in State of Rajasthan and there is no upper limit on the total number of shops in a city or town. This has resulted in mushroom growth of liquor shops and more often than not public outcry, disputes and police cases are reported in media on account of opening of wine shops near schools, hospitals, temples and other residential areas.

(2.) THE State Government does not appear to have undertaken any impact assessment of this policy change and it seems State is only trigger happy in increasing its Revenue instead of taking socially more acceptable and morally more reasonable decision in this regard. It could have been much more advisable to keep the number of shops limited and to locate them only at suitably selected places in accordance with the Rules and norms in this regard. State could itself select such fixed rented premises and put only such fixed shops to auction, so that unbriddled mushroom growth of wine shops is avoided and peace in the localities is maintained.

(3.) MR. Vikas Balia, the learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged before this Court that Clause 3 (r) of Conditions of Tender Notice would get attracted only if additional shops were sanctioned or permitted to be opened by the respondent - Excise Department in addition to the number of shops for which already sanction was issued or licences were given. He submitted that this was not a case of permission of any additional shop, but it was only a request for re-location or transfer of shops from one ward to another in view of public opposition in particular area, which was duly permitted by the Commissioner of Excise Department vide Annex. 4 dated 13. 6. 1997. He submitted that at the time of giving of said permission, no information was given to the petitioner that such approval of transfer/ relocation of the shops would attract levy of additional exclusive privilege price, otherwise the petitioner would have withdrawn his request for such transfer of shops from one area to another and secondly, as a matter of fact, he submitted that neither at the transferred place approved by the Commissioner, the petitioner opened such shops in view of subsequent demand made of additional exclusive privilege price which is impugned in the present writ petition nor at originally prescribed places, these four shops could be opened by the petitioner and as against licences given to the petitioner for 45 shops for the aforesaid period of 1997-1999 under the said tender notice, the petitioner operated throughout the period only 41 shops. He submitted that question of "additional' shop as envisaged in clause 3 (r) could arise only if number of total shops exceeded 45 in the case of the petitioner. He submitted that levy of additional exclusive privilege price could not get attracted merely on account of re- location or transfer or substitution of one shop for another at different place in the same area. He prayed for quashing of the impugned demand of such additional privilege price.