HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4151/2023 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Jai Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o A-9/2, Hari Nagar, Amanishah Road, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9899/2023 Babulal Verma S/o Dhaniram, Aged About 60 Years, Tansen Makbare Ke Pass, R/o Ghos Pura No. 2, Hazira, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh- 474003. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents (2 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8335/2022 Smt. Vineeta Sharma W/o Madan Sharma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 63, Bagada Sadan, Govindpura, Ward No. 11, Kalwar Road, Hathoj, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise ) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, 2 Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14367/2022 Rampal, S/o. Rumal Singh, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Phulpur, Devri Road, Agra, Samsabad, Uttar Pradesh 28312 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2430/2023 Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Leeladhar, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of Shastri Nagar, Sewar Thane Ke Pass, Bharatpur, Rajasthan - 321303. (3 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2431/2023 Jai Kumar S/o Balram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Resham Mill, Old Line, Birla Nagar, Gwalior, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2433/2023 Prem Singh S/o Govind Singh, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Nayelathok Ward No. 8, Budhwarikhurd, Khatoti, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, (4 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3168/2023 Smt. Leena Mewara W/o Sh. Chandan Mewara, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 20/137, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3169/2023 Smt. Sita Devi W/o Kanhayalal Tak, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 115/36, Agarwal Farm, Mansarovar Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government (5 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3315/2023 Vijender Saini S/o Mangalchand Saini, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Tulsyano Ki Bawari Ke Pass, Ward No. 39, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan- 333001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3316/2023 Mukesh Kumar S/o Parameshwar Lal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Deenarpura, Sikar, Rajasthan- 332304 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar. (6 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3317/2023 Vinod S/o Manphool Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Chirasan Loyal, Jhunjhunu, Chirawa, Rajasthan- 333514 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3773/2023 Sampat Singh S/o Narayan Lal, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Lahchora Kalan, Bharatpur, Bayana, Rajasthan 321401 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3775/2023 Smt. Laxmi W/o Kalla, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Bhola Pura, Thana Dang, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321401 ----Petitioner Versus (7 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3915/2023 Bhupendra Singh S/o Nanga Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Chhonkarwara Kalan, Bharatpur, Rajasthan 321407. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4454/2023 Kapil Chauhan S/o Shri Om Prakash Chauhan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Khundrot, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat Jaipur. (8 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4581/2023 Ashok Kumar Adlakha S/o Shyam Lal, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Railway Housing Society, Mala Road, Kota Junction, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretarial, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4698/2023 Mahendra Pratap Singh Sikarwar S/o Rajendra Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 22 Seth Sunder Lal Jain Ki Gali, Chhawani, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). (9 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretarial, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4702/2023 Rajendra Agrawal S/o Ram Pratap Agrawal, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Pandit Ji Ke Makan Ke Pass, Ward No. 31, Indira Gandhi Nagar, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4705/2023 Ram Kalyan Nagar S/o Kanwar Lal Nagar, Aged About 62 Years, R/o 7, Gali No. 2, Saraswati Colony, Baran Road, Police Line, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (10 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4709/2023 Deepak Pareta S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Near Bajrang Clinic, Ward No. 30, Indra Gandhi Nagar, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretarial, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4710/2023 Ravindra Singh S/o Shri Chhotu Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of 20 Parshva Nath Colony, Behind Holi Family Hospital, Dewli, Arab Road, Borkheda Kota. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, (11 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Secretarial, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4711/2023 Manmeet Singh Chawla S/o Harprit Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Preetvila, New Post Office Road, Kota Junction, Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretarial, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4717/2023 Santosh Agrawal S/o Ram Pratap Agrawal, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Agrawal Sadan, Ward No. 32, Prem Nagar 3, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj). 3. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary. Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretarial, Jaipur. (12 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 4. The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, State Excise Department, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5776/2023 Jaiveer Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Shekhawat, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 1, Ward No. 9, Bhojgarh, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5777/2023 Sachin Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 6, Kumawas, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. (13 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5793/2023 Anil Malawat S/o Shri Keshar Mal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o 121, Brahmano Ki Dhani, Jagatpura, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5897/2023 Sunil Meena S/o Shri Prahlad Sahay Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 12, Mana Ki Dhani, Nangal Purohit, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 5. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of (14 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8972/2023 Kewalram Pareta S/o. Shri Bhanwarlal, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Degod Jagir, Tehsil Chipabarod, District Kota (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) 4. District Excise Officer, Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9009/2023 Surajmal Sharma S/o Shri Ram Chandra Sharma, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 9, Senrol, District Jhalawar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) 4. District Excise Officer, Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9033/2023 Balram Odd S/o. Shri Hansraj Odd, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village Paraniya Tahsil Kishan Ganj Distt Baran.(Rajasthan) ----Petitioner (15 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) 4. District Excise Officer, Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9099/2023 Harish Nagar S/o Shri Jailal Nagar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 3, Basanthuni, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) 4. District Excise Officer, Baran (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9758/2023 Vedmitra Choudhary S/o Rajveer Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Mirchau Ka Nagla, Gagwana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Chorpeepri (Gangroli, Raisees, Kawai), Year 2022-23. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. (16 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9796/2023 Satish Kumar S/o Virender Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Khinwasar, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Khinwasar (Vill Khinwasar) Area Of Gp Khinwasar, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9802/2023 Vikarm S/o Tulsiram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. 229, Ganga Mal Mandir Mandir Road, Shiv Colony, Pahad Ganj, Ward No. 6, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 20,40,42,50,57,58,59 (43,48,49 Sc) Shop No.5, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (17 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9808/2023 Jai Kumar S/o Balram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Resham Mill Purani Line, Birla Nagar, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh- 474004. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9849/2023 Ashok Sharma, S/o. Gopi Chand Sharma, Aged About 52 Years, R/o. Chak Samri, Chak Samri, Bharatpur- 321404 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9851/2023 Beena Chandel, W/o. Shivdayal Chandel, Aged About 37 Years, (18 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] R/o. Plot No. 56, Jawahar Nagar Gulab Bag Bajariya, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Shop No. 20, Ward No.29 To 41, 42 (8C), 43 (8C), 44 N.p Sawai Madhopur, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9854/2023 Jagdish Prasad Meena, S/o. Okar Prasad Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Jain Mohalla, Raseedpur, Rasidpur, Dausa, Mahwa, Rajasthan Licensee For The Composite Shop Saipur Pakhar, G.p Saipur Pakhar Ukrund, Tikri Kilanaut Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dausa ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9855/2023 Rakhi Devi, W/o. Satish, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village, Banbeerpur, Post Khazuri Bass, Alwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For (19 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] The Composite Shop Gp Tatarpur, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9866/2023 Yogita Suwalka, W/o. Ashok Kumar Suwalka, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. B-8, Babji Nagar, Baran, Rajasthan, License Of Composite Shop Nagar Parishad Baran Bus Stand (I) Ward No. 16,17,37,38,39,40,46,47,50,5 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9868/2023 Abhishek Solanki S/o. Govind Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Gram Shankarpura Post Tulsa, Baran, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Ratawad, Shop Code-2801050, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner (20 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9869/2023 Bhup Singh, S/o. Bihari Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Mohalla- Dharmshala, Village-Malpura, Teshil-Kotputli, Malpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Shop Gp Gonera, Jaisingpura Gp Paniyala, Khedki ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9872/2023 Umesh Kumar Tanwer, S/o. Dev Lal Tanwer, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. Gurjar Mohalla Ward No. 36, Raghunath Ji Ke Mandir Ke Pass, Baran, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Nagar Parishad Baran Gajanpura (Ii), Ward No. 1,2,3,4, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus (21 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9873/2023 Gajendra Singh, S/o. Nahar Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. Hukampura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Balmas (Vill Bamlas) Area Of Gp Bamlas, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9874/2023 Pushpendra Goyal, S/o. Bhagwan Sahay Goyal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Gangapur, Syaroli, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan License Of Composite Shop Gunsar, Gp Gunar, Bajheda, Katkad, Gawada Meena, Todoopura ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, (22 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Karauli ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9875/2023 Durga Shanker Nagar, S/o. Bheru Lal Nagar, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Kahar Mohalla, Jhalwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Liquor Shop Gram Panchayat Kishanpuria (Gra. P. Kishanpuria And Hingi), Year 2022-2023 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Kota ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9876/2023 Budha Ram Gurjar, S/o. Malaram Gurjar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o. Dharmshala Mohalla, Malpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Shop Gp Gonera, Jaisingpura ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (23 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9877/2023 Devendra Singh Chouhan, S/o. Jagannath Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Jalalpur Road, Bardod, Alwar, Barrod, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop G.p Sodawas, Hatundi, Shyamda, Majri Khola, Pipali, Badhin, Jhajharpur, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9884/2023 Bhagchand Gurjar S/o Jai Narayan Gurjar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Devji Ke Mandir Ke Pas, Dhundiya Road, Nathri, Tonk, Rajasthan Licensee Of Composite Shop Bagri (Dardaturki, Piyaori) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. (24 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Tonk. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10681/2023 Ashok Kumar Suwalka S/o Gopal Lal Suwalka, Aged About 49 Years, R/o B-8, Babji Nagar, Baran, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Bengna, Phoosara, Year 2022-23. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10737/2023 Dinesh Dhaka S/o Mangi Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Rajasthan Nursing College, Kissan Colony, Sikar, Nawalgarh Road, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Liquor Shop Ward No. 7, Court Road Ka Bayan Hissa, Year 2022-2023, Year 2022-2023 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar ----Respondents (25 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10740/2023 Inderpal S/o Jagdish, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Kathrathal, Kudli, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Np Sikar Ward No 49, 51 To 54, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10784/2023 Hari Ram Meena S/o Dodi Ram, Aged About 54 Years, R/o Waed No. 1 Gopalpura, Karauli, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Todabheem G.p (Mannoj, Ajijpur, N.p Todabheem, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Karauli ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10787/2023 Smt. Suman W/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Meelon Ki Dhani, Miran, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For (26 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Composite Liquor Shop Meeran, Ghanna, Year 2022-2023 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10831/2023 Ramsahay Meena S/o Chhajuram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Vijaipura, Jinapura, Rajasthan Licesee Of Composite Shop Choru, Haidripura ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Tonk. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10900/2023 Bhagwan Singh S/o Virju Gurjar, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Shriya Pura, Seball, Khooda, Karauli, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (27 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Karauli. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11033/2023 Sajjan Kumar Saini S/o Sanwar Mal Saini, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Balrampura, Palwas, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Liquor Shop Sewad Bari And Patoda, Year 2022-2023 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11096/2023 Ram Babu Gujar S/o Rupnarayan Gujar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 7 Madhuban Colony, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Rawanjana Chaur, Rawanjana Doongar, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, (28 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11111/2023 Reena Kumari Shaktawat C/o Dhirendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 133, Rajput Mohhalla, Amli, Tonk, Rajasthan, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Deoli, Patoli Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Tonk ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11113/2023 Hansraj Gurjar S/o Sitaram Gujar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Torda Gujran, Paota, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Goojran, Taskola, Buchara, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, (29 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11121/2023 Dhanraj Meena S/o Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Bhanwar Lal Meena, 76 A, R.k Puram, Kota, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Liquor Shop No. 2 Gram Panchayat Mandhana And Mandliya, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Kota ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11124/2023 Manraj Saini S/o Sitaram Saini, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Satnaryan Mohalla, Kushtala, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop No. 18, Ward No. 18,19,20,21,22,23 (Sc), 45, 46, N.p. Sawai Madhopur, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur (30 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11127/2023 Dhirendra Singh S/o Udaybhan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 133, Rajput Mohhala Amali, Tehsil- Uniara, Amli, Tonk, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Phalodi, Todara, Dumoda, Halonda, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11152/2023 Ram Bharat Vaishnav S/o Shree Sambhu Dayal Vaishnav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Jat Mohalla, Bahrawanda Khurd Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop, Chhan, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai (31 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Madhopur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11153/2023 Vikas Meena S/o Tara Singh Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Gurjaro Ka Khera Behin, Ioc Colony, Kherda (Rural), Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Bhedola, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11164/2023 Smt. Santosh, W/o. Ramswaroop, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Patoda, Sikar, Lachhmangarh, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Liquor Shop Rulyana Mali, Year 2022-2023 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar ----Respondents (32 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11331/2023 Mahendra Jat S/o Shivraj Jat, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Main Bazar, Hatai Ke Pass, Jaswantpura, Rampura Hanu, Ajmer, Licensee For Cpmopsite Shop, Loharwara ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11333/2023 Mahipal S/o Dhanna, Aged About 55 Years, R/o Bhayakar Pati, Koyrak, Kaithal, Haryana, Licensee For Composite Shop Red Cross Circle, Bharatpur, Year 2022-2023 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11343/2023 Gajendra Singh Solanki S/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Namana, Bundi, Rajasthan, License For Composite Shop Snod, Year 2022-2023 (33 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13591/2023 Dhirendra Singh S/o Udaybhan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 133, Rajput Mohhala Amali, Tehsil - Uniara, Amli, Tonk, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Phalodi, Todara, Dumoda, Halonda Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13597/2023 Kamla Devi W/o P S Choudhary, Aged About 69 Years, R/o. 70, Shri Vihar Colony, Ghosipura Railway Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh- 474012 ----Petitioner Versus (34 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13598/2023 Dhan Singh Sai S/o Seduram Sai, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Bhagwankali Chak Jodhpura, Tehsil Udaipurwati, Jodhpura, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Kankaria Naurangpura (Vill Kankaria) Area Of Gp Kankaria Naurangpura, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13599/2023 Subash Kumar S/o Gumana Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Khokharo Ka Bas, Sanwloda Purohitan, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Sanwaloda Purophitan, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (35 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13600/2023 Rajni Kumari W/o Vikash Choudhary, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Bharounda Kalan, Bhadunda, Kalan, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Bhadundakalan (Sephara Bhadundakalan) Area Of Gp Bhadundakalan, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13601/2023 Manoj Kumar Sharma S/o Bhawani Shanker Sharma, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Malpura, Keshwana, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite Shop Gp Sangtera Village Sekhupur, Year 2022- 23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. (36 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 269/2024 Jagdish Prasad, S/o. Banwari Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Vpo- Katrathal, Via- Katrathal Teh-Sikar, Katrathal Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Shop Np Sikar Ward 07 (Court Ke Samne Ka Hisha), Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 272/2024 Satypal Singh S/o Devendra Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ward No. 05, Jerthi, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Shop Kudan And Ajeetpura Village, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, (37 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 275/2024 Daleep Singh, S/o. Manohar Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Ward No. 4, Kharkhara, Jhunjhunu, Khetri, Rajasthan, License For The Composite Shop Gp Beelwa-Bankoti, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 276/2024 Lokesh Mali, S/o. Rampal Mali, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Khatavada, Jarda, Jhalawar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Shop Nagoniya G.p Laifal - Mundla, Jhalawar, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhalawar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 279/2024 (38 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Balu Singh, S/o. Mangi Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Udliya Kheri, Govindpura, Jhalawar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Shop Awar, Jhalawar, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhalawar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 280/2024 Vijay Singh, S/o. Sardar Singh, Aged About 55 Years, R/o. Guradi, Jhalawar, Sulia, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Shop Guradiyamana, Jhalawar, Year 2022-23 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhalawar ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6603/2024 Shveta Rana D/o Gopal Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Odela Road, Krish Vibhag Ke Piche, Jiroli, Dhaulpur, Dhoplpur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Retail Off License Kumher Road, Nadbai, Bharatpur, Year 2022-2023. (39 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer (Recovery), Excise Department, Bharatpur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7654/2024 Mool Chand Mewara S/o Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Kalolo Mohalla, Kothiya, P/o Kothain, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16279/2024 Rajbir Singh S/o Ramji Lal, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Near Anguri Devi Dharamshala, Mohala Khojawada, Mahendragarh, Haryana. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. (40 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17492/2024 Kaptan Singh S/o Sher Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Kundu, Baghana, Alwar, Rajasthan- 301702. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 4. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department (Recovery), Behror. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17806/2024 Vivian Lobo S/o Shri Fabiya Lobo, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of 400, Compition Colony, Mahaveer Nagar, Iii Anandpura @ Phoota Talab, P.i.p., Kota (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) 3. District Excise Officer, D.c.m Road, Aerodrum Circle, Chhatrapura, Kota (Raj.) (41 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17811/2024 Akash Sharma S/o Shri Neeraj Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of House No. 1135-B, Shrinathpuram, Engineering College, Kota (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan State Excise Department, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.) 3. District Excise Officer, D.c.m. Road, Aerodrum Circle, Chhatrapura, Kota (Raj.) ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 667/2025 Tejaram Dhanka S/o Bhanwar Ram Dhanka, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Chatrpura, Jawanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 303119 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Secretary, Finance (Revenue) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 924/2025 Ramveer Singh Rajpoot S/o Chittar Singh Rajpoot, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Golara, Dausa, Rajasthan- 303315. ----Petitioner Versus (42 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 4. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dausa. ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 933/2025 Om Prakash S/o Prahalad, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Jaloda Khatiyan, Kota, Rajasthan-325214 ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 4. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Kota. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Malani. Ms. Bharti Sharma on behalf of Mr. Achintya Kaushik. Mr. Falak Mathur. Mr. Nikhil Simlote. Mr. Salim Khan Gori. Mr. Manish. Mr. Utsav Verma. Mr. Himanshu. Mr. Pradeep Singh. Mr. Prachi Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Tanay Goyal, Mr. Sheetanshu Sharma, Ms. Harshita Thakral & Ms. Dhriti Laddha. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI CHIRANIA (43 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Order 05/03/2026 1. Since the controversy involved in these writ petitions is similar in nature and the same are being decided by this common order. The facts of the case are taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4151/2023, wherein the following prayer has been made as under:-:- It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and this Hon'ble Court by appropriate writ, order or direction: 1. Call for the record of the entire proceedings: 2. Quash and set aside Clause II (ix) of the Amendment to Excise and Temperance Policy 2022-23 & 2023-24 dated 22.01.2023 to the extent that it allows RTDC to open licensed vends outside of their premises on license fees system without any insistence on any revenue guarantee or lifting of liquor (Annexure-4) 3. Quash and set aside communication dated 06.02.2023 to the extent that it allows RTDC, RSBCL & RSGSM to open licensed vends outside of their premises on license fees system without any insistence on any revenue guarantee or lifting of liquor (Annexure-5) or in the alternate; 4. Petitioner be allowed to withdraw from the license and respondents be directed to refund the security and other refundable amounts; 5. Any other relief, order or direction that this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good conscience.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 21.04.2022 for allotment of liquor shops in the State of Rajasthan by way of auction and also issued the Excise Policy for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24 dated 05.02.2022. The petitioners participated in the said auction proceedings and were allotted liquor shops in accordance with (44 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] their applications. The petitioners carried on the liquor business for the year 2022-23, however, when the time for renewal of the licence for the year 2023-24 arose, the petitioners did not opt for renewal. Consequently, the security amount deposited by them stood forfeited by the respondents in view of Clause 2.7 of the said policy. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions. 3. Counsels appearing for the petitioners argued that the respondents made certain changes in the policy during the subsistence of the contract. Counsels further argued that the respondents created two different categories of licence for carrying on the liquor business by amending the policy for the subsequent year 2023-24. Counsel further argued that the Government entities were also allotted shops for carrying on liquor business, which was contrary to the interests of the petitioners. Counsel further argued that the action of the respondents in changing the terms and conditions of the policy during the currency of the licence is arbitrary and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Counsel further argued that the respondents unilaterally altered the terms and conditions of the contract, which is arbitrary in nature and therefore, the petitioners are entitled to refund of the security deposit. 4. In view of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, counsels relied upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of M.P. Vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Ors. reported in 1986 (4) SCC 566, wherein para No.33, it has been held as under:- (45 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] “33. But, before we do so, we may at this stage conveniently refer to a contention of a preliminary nature advanced on behalf of the State Government and respondent Nos. 5-11 against the applicability of Article 14 in a case dealing with the grant of liquor licences. The contention was that trade or business in liquor is so inherently pernicious that no one can claim any fundamental right in respect of it and Article 14 cannot therefore be invoked by the petitioners. Now, it is true, and it is well settled by several decisions of this Court including the decision in Har Shanker and Ors. etc. v. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner and Ors. MANU/SC/0321/1975 : [1975]3SCR254 that there is no fundamental right in a citizen to carry on trade or business in liquor. The State under its regulatory power has the power to prohibit absolutely every form of activity in relation to intoxicants-its manufacture, storage, export, import, sale and possession. No one can claim as against the State the right to carry on trade or business in liquor and the State cannot be compelled to part with its exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing and selling liquor. But when the State decides to grant such right or privilege to others the State cannot escape the rigour of Article 14. It cannot act arbitrarily or at its sweet will. It must comply with the equality clause while granting the exclusive right or privilge of manufacturing or selling liquor. It is, therefore, not possible to uphold the contention of the State Government and respondent Nos. 5-11 that Article 14 can have no application in a case where the licence to manufacture or sell liquor is being granted by the State Government. The State cannot ride roughshod over the requirement of that Article.” 5. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Khoday Distillers Vs. State of Karnatka reported in 1995 (1) SCC 574, wherein para No.73, it has been held as under:- (46 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] “73. We may now summarise the law on the subject as culled from the aforesaid decisions. [a] The rights protected by Article 19[1] are not absolute but qualified. The qualifications are stated in Clauses [2] to [6] of Article 19. The fundamental rights guaranteed in Article 190[1](a) to (g) are, therefore, to be read along with the said qualifications. Even the rights guaranteed under the Constitutions of the other civilized countries are not absolute but are read subject to the implied limitations on them. Those implied limitations are made explicit by Clauses [2] to [6] of Article 19 of our Constitution. [b] The right to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business does not extend to practising a profession or carrying on an occupation, trade or business which is inherently vicious and pernicious, and is condemned by all civilised societies. It does not entitle citizens to carry on trade or business in activities which are immoral and criminal and in articles or goods which are obnoxious and injurious to health, safety and welfare of the general public, i.e., res extra commercium, [outside commerce]. There cannot be business in crime. [c] Potable liquor as a beverage is an intoxicating and depressant drink which is dangerous and injurious to health and is, therefore, an article which is res extra commercium being inherently harmful. A citizen has, therefore, no fundamental right to do trade or business in liquor. Hence the trade or business in liquor can be completely prohibited. [d] Article 47 of the Constitution considers intoxicating drinks and drugs as injurious to health and impeding the raising of level of nutrition and the standard of living of the people and improvement of the public health. It, therefore, ordains the State to bring about prohibition of the consumption of intoxicating drinks which obviously include liquor, except for medicinal purposes. Article 47 is one of the Directive Principles which is fundamental in the governance of the country. The State has, therefore, the power (47 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] to completely prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, distribution and consumption of potable liquor as a beverage, both because it is inherently a dangerous article of consumption and also because of the Directive Principle contained in Article 47, except when it is used and consumed for medicinal purposes. [e] For the same reason, the State can create a monopoly either in itself or in the agency created by it for the manufacture, possession, sale and distribution of the liquor as a beverage and also sell the licences to the citizens for the said purpose by charging fees. This can be done under Article 19[6] or even otherwise. [f] For the same reason, again, the State can impose limitations and restrictions on the trade or business in potable liquor as a beverage which restrictions are in nature different from those imposed on the trade or business in legitimate activities and goods and articles which are res commercium. The restrictions and limitations on the trade or business in potable liquor can again be both under Article 19[6] or otherwise. The restrictions and limitations can extend to the State carrying on the trade or business itself to the exclusion of and elimination of others and/or to preserving to itself the right to sell licences to do trade or business in the same, to others. [g] When the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. [h] The State can adopt any mode of selling the licences for trade or business with a view to maximise its revenue so long as the method adopted is not discriminatory. [i] The State can carry on trade or business in potable liquor notwithstanding that it is an intoxicating drink and Article 47 enjoins it to prohibit its consumption. When the State (48 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] carries on such business, it does so to restrict and regulate production, supply and consumption of liquor which is also an aspect of reasonable restriction in the interest of general public. The State cannot on that account be said to be carrying on an illegitimate business. [j] The mere fact that the State levies taxes or fees on the production, sale and income derived from potable liquor whether the production, sale or income is legitimate or illegitimate, does not make the State a party to the said activities. The power of the State to raise revenue by levying taxes and fees should not be confused with the power of the State to prohibit or regulate the trade or business in question. The State exercises its two different powers on such occasions. Hence the mere fact that the State levies taxes and fees on trade or business in liquor or income derived from it, does not make the right to carry on trade or business in liquor a fundamental right, or even a legal right when such trade or business is completely prohibited. [k] The State cannot prohibit trade or business in medicinal and toilet preparations containing liquor or alcohol. The State can, however, under Article 19[6] place reasonable restrictions on the right to trade or business in the same in the interests of general public. [l] Likewise, the state cannot prohibit trade or business in industrial alcohol which is not used as a beverage but used legitimately for industrial purposes. The State, however, can place reasonable restrictions on the said trade or business in the interests of the general public under Article 19[6] of the Constitution. [m] The restrictions placed on the trade or business in industrial alcohol or in medicinal and toilet preparations containing liquor or alcohol may also be for the purposes of preventing their abuse or diversion for use as or in beverage.” (49 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] 6. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of P.N. Kaushal and Ors. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in 1978 (3) SCC 558, wherein para Nos.4, 47 & 49, it has been held as under:- “4. The Punjab Excise Act, 1914, contemplates grant of licences, inter alia, for trading in (Indian) foreign and country liquor. There are various conditions attached to the licences which are of a regulatory and fiscal character. The petitioners are licence- holders and have, on deposit of heavy licence fee, been permitted by the State to vend liquor. The conditions of the licences include restrictions of various types, including obligation not to sell on certain days and during certain hours. Under the former Rule 37 Tuesday upto 2 p.m. was prohibited for sale; so also the seventh day of the month. The licences were granted subject to rules framed under the Act and Section 59 is one of the provisions empowering rule-making. Rule 37 was amended by a notification whereby, in the place of Tuesdays upto 2 p.m. plus the 7th day of every month, Tuesdays and Fridays in every week were substituted, as days when liquor vending was prohibited. Under the modified rules a consequential reduction of the licence fee from Rs. 12,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- was also made, probably to compensate for the marginal loss caused by the two-day closure. Aggrieved by this amendment the petitioners moved this Court challenging its vires as well as the constitutionality of Section 59(f)(v) which is the source of power to make Rule 37. If the Section fails the rule must fall, since the stream cannot rise higher than the source. Various contentions based on Article 19(g) and (6) and Article 14 were urged and stay of operation of the new rule was granted by this Court. 47. We must here record an undertaking by the Punjab Government and eliminate a possible confusion. The amended rule partially prohibits liquor sales in the sense that on Tuesdays and Fridays no hotel, restaurant or other institution covered by it (50 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] shall trade in liquor. But this prohibition is made non-applicable to like institutions run by the Government or its agencies. We, prima facie, felt that this was discriminatory on its face. Further, Article 47 charged the State with promotion of prohibition as a fundamental policy and it is indefensible for Government to enforce prohibitionist restraints on others and itself practise the opposite and betray the constitutional mandate. It suggests dubious dealing by State Power. Such hollow homage to Article 47 and the Father of the nation gives diminishing credibility mileage in a democratic polity The learned Additional Solicitor General, without going into the correctness of propriety of our initial view- probably he wanted to controvert or clarify- readily agreed that the Tuesday-Friday ban would be equally observed by the State organs also. The undertaking recorded, as part of the proceedings of the Court, runs thus :- The Additional Solicitor General appearing for the State of Punjab states that the Punjab State undertakes to proceed on the footing that the 'Note' is not in force and that they do not propose to rely on the 'Note' and will, in regard to tourist bungalows and resorts run by the Tourism Department of the State Government, observe the same regulatory provision as is contained in the substantive part of Rule 37 Sub-rule 9. We accept this statement and treat it as an undertaking by the State. Formal steps for deleting the 'Note' will be taken in due course. 49. In short, Tuesdays and Fridays, so long as this rule remains (as modified in the light of the undertaking) shall be a holiday for the liquor trade in the private or public sector throughout the State. We need hardly state that if Government goes back on this altered law the consequences may be plural and unpleasant. Of course, we do not expect, in the least, that any such apprehension will actualise.” 7. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Kerala and (51 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Ors. Vs. B. Surendra Das and Ors. reported in 2015 (12) SCC 101, wherein para No.25, it has been held as under:- “25. The learned senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that as can be seen from paragraph 5 of the impugned judgment, the High Court has considered the relevant observations of this Court in Khoday Distilleries (supra), wherein this Court has held that although there is no right to carry on liquor business as a Fundamental right, wherever it is permitted by the state, there should not be any room for discrimination. It was submitted that this observation is supported by paragraph 60(g) of the very judgment which reads as follows: (g) When the State permits trade or business in the potable liquor with or without limitation, the citizen has the right to carry on trade or business subject to the limitations, if any, and the State cannot make discrimination between the citizens who are qualified to carry on the trade or business. 8. With regard to material and unilateral alteration in the terms and conditions of a contract, counsels for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the matter of Karambir Nain Vs. The State of Haryana (CWP No.5573/2014) decided on 11.07.2014, wherein para No.11, has held as under:- “11. The State of Haryana had framed Excise Policy for two years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014- 15 when the matter was pending in PIL in CWP No. 25777 of 2012. The clause 2-B of the amended policy was incorporated whereby the licencee has been allowed to close down only the vends on the Highways and not the other vends which are appended in the composite licence. Once, licencee had given a bid and was issued a composite licence, which included the vend on the Highways (i.e., the affected vend), the State has without seeking consent of the licencee (52 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] tried to impose the fresh terms on the licencee. The question is whether the State is authorised to do so unilaterally.” 9. Lastly, prayed for allowing the writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners. 10. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondents-State vehemently opposed the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and relied upon the Clause-2.7.3 of the said policy, which reads as under:- “2-7-3 uohuhdj.k dh vU; 'krsZa] uohuhdj.k Qhl o izfØ;k o"kZ 2022&23 ds vuqlkj gh gksxhA ik= vuqKk/kkfj;ksa }kjk o"kZ 2023&24 ds fy;s uohuhdj.k gsrq fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k vuqlkj uohuhdj.k Qhl] /kjksgj jkf’k dh vUrj jkf’k] vfxze okf"kZd xkj.Vh dh jkf’k rFkk okf"kZd ykblsal Qhl dh fu/kkZfjr jkf’k fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa tek ugha djkus ij mldk uohuhdj.k fujLr dj o"kZ 2022&23 dh /kjksgj jkf’k lfgr o"kZ 2023&24 gsrq tek djkbZ xbZ leLr jkf’k tCr dj fu;ekuqlkj dk;Zokgh vey esa ykbZ tk;sxhA” 11. Learned Advocate General further relied upon a Clause-4 of the undertaking submitted by the petitioners while participating in the auction proceedings for allotment of the liquor shop, which reads as under:- “4- vkosnu LohÑfr tkjh gksus dh fLFkfr esa] eSa vkosnu i= ds lkFk foHkkx }kjk fn, x, foLr`r fooj.k vuqlkj fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa ykblsal Qhl vkfn dh jkf’k tek djk nwaxkA” 12. Learned Advocate General further relied upon a Clause 14.6 of the conditions of the licence of the liquor shop, which reads as under:- “14-6 vkcdkjh ,oa e| la;e uhfr o"kZ 2022&23 ,oa o"kZ 2023&24 ds izko/kku ,oa blds rgr tkjh dh xbZ vf/klwpuk@foHkkxh; ifji=@vkns’k ,oa le;≤ ij (53 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] jkT; ljdkj@ foHkkx }kjk efnjk nqdkuksa ds laca/k esa tkjh vkns’k@funsZ’k vfUre gksaxsA” 13. Learned Advocate General further submits that the changes made in the policy by the respondents fall within the ambit of reasonable classification. Learned Advocate General further submits that certain conditions under the policy were relaxed only with respect to a few shops which were left out. Learned Advocate General further submits that the petitioners had participated in the auction process for shops which are more revenue generating both for the State as well as for the petitioners, whereas the left-out shops are situated at locations which are comparatively less revenue generating, therefore, in order to ensure settlement of such shops, certain relaxations were made by the State Government, in such circumstances, the petitioners cannot claim violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, particularly when they themselves participated in the said auction process. Learned Advocate General further submits that the petitioners participated in the auction process with open eyes and once they have agreed for the terms and conditions of the licence, they are estopped to challenge the same. Learned Advocate General further submits that there is no fundamental right to carry on trade in liquor. Learned Advocate General further submits that if the petitioners are aggrieved by any alleged violation of the terms and conditions of the contract, they may seek appropriate remedy by filing a civil suit for damages after proving that they have suffered loss on account of the actions of the respondents. 14. In support of the contention, learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at (54 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter of ‘Smt. Keshar Kanwa Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3945/2023 along with other connected matters) decided on 16.12.2024, wherein the following order was passed:- “Taking into consideration the nature of relief sought in these petitions, by efflux of time, these petitions are now rendered infructuous. Keeping the issue open for consideration in case eventuality so arises, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed off, as infructuous.” 15. Learned Advocate General further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Nitish Kumar Verma vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4928/2022), decided on 05.05.2022, wherein certain conditions of the policy were considered and adjudicated upon by this Court. 16. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. These writ petitions filed on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the policy in issue has been considered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Keshar Kanwa as well as Nitish Kumar Verma (both supra), wherein the writ petitions have been dismissed either on account of having become infructuous or on merits; secondly the petitioners have participated in the auction proceedings with open eyes and allotment of their shops is governed by the terms & conditions of the policy as well as by the terms and conditions of their licence thus they are estopped to challenge the same after enjoying the fruits of the shop for one year; thirdly the respondents have made certain changes in the policy just to settle the left out shops, (55 of 55) [CW-4151/2023] which in our considered view is a reasonable classification and there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; lastly in our considered view by efflux of time these writ petitions have become infructuous because the period of liquor licence relates to the year 2022-23 & 2023-24 which has already expired. 18. In that view of the matter, these writ petitions stand dismissed. All the pending applications, if any, stands disposed of. 19. Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file. (RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/21-131