SANDEEP KUMAR SAHARAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has approached this Court for challenging the order (Annexure-4) dated 27.02.2018 whereby, the country-made liquor vend licnece for the shop at Gogameri was awarded to the respondent No.4. The petitioner was already operating the said vend in the year 2017-18. Upon the period of licence coming to an end, the Excise Department issued an advertisement on 30.01.2018 inviting applications from aspiring licence holders for renewal of the licence for the financial year 2018-19 (It may be stated here that the petitioner has conveniently omitted to annex this advertisement with the writ petition). Though not admitted in so many words in the writ petition the petitioner did not avail this opportunity of getting the licence renewed in terms of the advertisement Annexure-R/4. Thereafter and as no application for renewal was received, the Excise Department issued the fresh advertisement (Annexure-2) dated 10.02.2018 inviting applications from aspiring candidates for excise vend licences of liquor country-made as well as foreign except for those shops whose licence had been renewed. The petitioner, who admittedly did not go for renewal, chose to apply for two country-made liquor vends i.e. Gogameri and Nethrana. Condition No.5 of the advertisement dated 10.02.2018 is relevant and germane for deciding the controversy at hand and is thus being reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:

(2.) The petitioner's bids succeeded for both the shops and thus, keeping with the above mentioned condition, the petitioner was awarded the lience for excise vend shop at Nethrana for which lesser number of applications had been received. However, rather than accepting the said excise vend licence of the shop at Netrana, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this writ petition challenging the action of the respondents in introducing the above mentioned condition alleging the same to be in violation of the excise policy and claiming that he has been discriminated thereby. The petitioner stakes a claim for the Gogameri shop.

(3.) The respondent Excise Department as well as the respondent No.4 to whom the excise vend licence of Gogameri shop has been awarded, have filed replies to the writ petition. In the reply filed by the Excise Department, it is categorically mentioned that the condition No.5, referred to supra, was consistently followed in the preceding years and is a part of the Department's policy. The condition is essential where multiple applications are received for the same vend; as per the condition, licence of the shop for which lesser number of applications is received, is awarded to the person who succeeds in the lottery at more than one place.