RUKANDEEN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-court appeal is directed against order dtd. 27/9/18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to the respondents to approve location of shop of country liquor in Ward No. 36 of Municipal Corporation, Bikaner in favour of the petitioner and cancellation of approved location of the private respondent in the said ward has been disposed of as having become infructuous.

(2.) The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under:

(3.) The facts relevant are that the appellant was allocated the liquor license for the year 2018-19 for the Country Liquor Group Ward Nos. 36, 37 and 38 of the municipal area of Bikaner City. There were two shops in the Group and one shop of the appellant was running from 1/4/18 on the previously approved location in Ward No. 36 at Rani Baazar. The appellant submitted location for second shop before the District Excise Officer, Bikaner on 24/3/18. The application being not accompanied by requisite documents, was returned by the Department to the appellant. The appellant instead of submitting the application for said location alongwith requisite documents before the District Excise Officer submitted another location before the Additional Commissioner Excise, Bikaner, on 24/4/18. On 7/5/18, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court seeking directions as aforesaid, raising the grievance that while the appellant's application for approval of the location is pending, the respondents have processed the application of respondent No. 5 in the location which forms part of Ward No. 36, whereas he had not applied for the same. After filing of the writ petition, the application of the appellant for approval of the location was referred to the Excise Inspector, Bikaner City to do the needful. On the recommendation of the Excise Inspector, the location was approved, however, vide notice dtd. 24/5/18, the appellant was informed that the location has been approved inadvertently and as a matter of fact at different time different locations were submitted by him and thus, the Department has been misguided. The appellant was directed to submit the explanation in this regard. As a matter of fact, the shop in respect whereof approval was sought by the appellant was in Ward No. 25 and not in Ward No. 36, 37 and 38. While the dispute in this regard pursuant to the notice issued as aforesaid was pending, the Department of Excise sought report from Municipal Corporation, Bikaner. The Municipal Corporation, Bikaner reported that the shop of the appellant is located in Ward No. 36, which was a report contrary to the earlier report.