VIMAL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has prayed that the order passed by the non -petitioner No. 3 Ex. 6 may be quashed and he has further prayed that clause 23 (ka) of the licence Ex. 3 may be quashed.

(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner is a liquor contractor and he was granted liquor contract for country made liquor as well as for Indian made foreign liquor for Suratgarh and Raisinghnagar for the year 1987 -88 and thereafter it was renewed for 1988 -89. It is alleged that there was short fall in July 1988 for which certain actions initiated. As a result of that action it initiated a spate of litigation before the Civil Court, before the High Court as well as before the Supreme Court. It is not necessary to dilate on the chequered history of that litigation. But so far as the present case is concerned, petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the District Excise Officer, Ganganagar Ex. 6 by which a sum of Rs. 16,10,400/ - is sought to be recovered from the petitioner's security deposits while exercising the condition 23 (ka) of the licence Ex. 3

(3.) SO far as the condition No. 23 (ka) is concerned it cannot be quashed for the simple reason that the petitioner has availed this very licence for more than 1 1/2 years and it does not lie in his mouth to turn back and say that the condition No. 23 (ka) suffers from any infirmity on illegality. Mr. Maheshwari, learned Counsel for the respondent has invited my attention to Lakh Raj v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. 1987 (1) WLN 774. In that case some what similar question came up for consideration and the learned Judge after considering various judgment of Supreme Court held as under: Suffice it to say that the law is well settled that the licencees having voluntarily entered into the contract and having enjoyed the licence to their benefit, could not be permitted to avoid their contractual obligation and the preliminary objection raised by the Additional Advocate General so the maintainability of the writ petition in so far as it seeks to challenge the conditions of the licence, deserves to be accepted. Therefore, this contention of the learned Counsel cannot be upheld.