Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2025 DAILYLAW 2158 (RAJ)

GOVIND SINGH RATHORE S/O SHRI GHEESU SINGH v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/56/2025 · 2025-01-13

Mahendar Kumar Goyal

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2025:RJ-JP:1875] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 54/2025 Govind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gheesu Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 484, Naveda Bera Via Saradhana Bhawata, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Licensee Of Composite Liquor Shop Of Ajmer Nagar Nigam, Ward No-19-24-26-28-29-30-31(17-18-21-22-25-27 Sc), Shop No-4, Shop No-123, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. 3. District Excise Officer, Ajmer. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 56/2025 Govind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gheesu Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 484, Naveda Bera Via Saradhana Bhawata, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Licensee Of Composite Liquor Shop Of Ajmer Nagar Nigam, Ward No- 19-24-26-28-29-30-31 (17-18-21-22-25-27 Sc), Shop No-7, Shop No-126, District Ajmer, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan. 3. District Excise Officer, Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Falak Mathur [2025:RJ-JP:1875] (2 of 2) [CW-54/2025] Mr. Nikhil Simlote Mr. Divyansh Mathur Mr. Salim Khan Gori Mr. Manish Bhodiwal and Mr. Yug Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Adv. cum AAG with Ms. Niti Jain Bhandari and Mr. Harsh Vardhan Katara HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 13/01/2025 These writ petitions are disposed of in following terms as agreed and requested by learned Senior Counsels for the respective parties: “(1) The order impugned dated 26.12.2024 is quashed and set aside. (2) The respondents are at liberty to pass an order afresh after giving the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing. (3) The parties are directed to remain present before the jurisdictional District Excise Officer on 27.01.2025 at 11:00 AM.” Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J DIKSHA /41-42