[2025:RJ-JP:28561] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10753/2025 Bhagwan Das Saini S/o Shri Dhanna Ram Saini, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Khasra No. 1086, Shahbad Ka Rasta, Gola Ka Bandh, Tijara, Alwar, Rajasthan- 301411. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Excise Through Principal Secretary, Main Building, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Excise Commissioner, State Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniawala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan- 313001. 3. District Excise Officer (Recovery), Behror, Kotputli-Behror. 4. Excise Inspector, Bhiwadi, Khairthal-Tijara. 5. Tehsildar, Tijara, Khairthal-Tijara. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Gautam Bhadadra with Mr.Raghvendra Singh JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 29/07/2025 1. By way of filing this writ petition, a challenge has been led to the impugned attachment warrant issued by the District Excise Officer, Behror vide order dated 04.06.2025 by which the property of the petitioner has been ordered to be attached. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is neither guarantor nor surety of the liquor licence holder Nagendra Kumar. Counsel submits that when the licence holder Nagendra Kumar failed to deposit the due amount to the Excise Department, the proceedings for recovery and attachment were [2025:RJ-JP:28561] (2 of 4) [CW-10753/2025] initiated against him in furtherance of the demand notice dated 20.06.2022. The licence holder assailed the aforesaid action of the respondents before this Court vide Civil Writ Petition No.13578/2022 whereby, the recovery order as well as the attachment orders were withdrawn by the respondent-Department and later, fresh order of recovery was passed against him. 3. Counsel submits that now by issuing the attachment-warrant dated 04.06.2025, the respondents are bent upon to recover the due amount by attaching the property of the petitioner. The petitioner has no concern whatsoever with Nagendra Kumar, and he is simply the father of the said Nagendra Kumar. Counsel submits that without issuing any notice and providing any opportunity of hearing, straightaway, the order impugned has been passed, hence, interference of this Court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at the Bar and perused the material available on record. 5. During the course of argument, a pin point question was asked by this Court from counsel for the petitioner as to whether the property in question, which has been attached now by the District Excise Officer vide order dated 04.06.2025, was ever put as guarantee or surety for getting liquor licence by the said Nagendra Kumar or not. Counsel for the petitioner has answered in “Negative”, meaning thereby as per the case of the petitioner, the property in question was never put as guarantee or surety. 6. As per Section 9 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act of 1950”), all orders passed by the District Excise Officer, are appealable under Section 9-A of the Act of 1950. [2025:RJ-JP:28561] (3 of 4) [CW-10753/2025] 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 9-A of the Act of 1950 before the statutory Appellate Authority, but without availing the said alternative remedy of filing appeal, the petitioner has straightaway approached this Court by way of filing this petition, bypassing the jurisdiction of the said Authority. 8. On this count alone, the instant writ petition stands disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 9-A of the Act of 1950 before the statutory Appellate Authority. In case, such an appeal is preferred by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today, it is expected from the Appellate Authority to hear and decide the same, expeditiously as early as possible within a period of eight weeks thereafter. 9. As per proviso and clause attached to sub-section 4 of Section 9-A of the Act of 1950, an appeal shall not be entertained unless a satisfactory proof of payment of 25% of the demand created is furnished along-with the appeal. 10. If it is the case of the petitioner that he is neither guarantor nor licence holder, nor the subject property was put as guarantee or surety for getting liquor licence by Nagendra Kumar. This fact be looked into by the Appellate Authority and if the Appellate Authority is satisfied, then condition mentioned in proviso of sub- section 4 of Section 9-A of the Act of 1950 may not be insisted upon. 11. In case, any stay application is preferred by the petitioner, the same would be decided by the Appellate Authority expeditiously. [2025:RJ-JP:28561] (4 of 4) [CW-10753/2025] 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Aayush Sharma /18