[2025:RJ-JP:36097] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12220/2025 Jyoti Kanwar W/o Shri Sampat Singh, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 11, Dudhawa, Dataramgarh, Sikar (Rajasthan) Licensee Model Shop, City Sikar, Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan). 4. District Excise Officer, Sikar, Bypass Road, Kudli, Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Najeeb Anwar Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, AAG with Mr. Harshwardhan Katara Mr. Lalit Bhardwaj HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 08/09/2025 1. The present petition is filed with the following prayers:- “a). quash and set aside the impugned sanction letter dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure-4) whereby amount under the heads mentioned in sanction letter dated 16.07.2025 have been determined without proportionately adjusting/reducing the minimum reserve price; [2025:RJ-JP:36097] (2 of 4) [CW-12220/2025] b). issue directions to the respondent to issue fresh/amended sanction letter to the petitioner by proportionately adjusting/reducing the minimum reserve price on which the Annual Guarantee Price is based in pursuance to the Clause 2.3.5 of the Excise and Temperancy policy 2025-2029 dated 29.01.2025 and clause 4.4 of the guidelines dated 09.06.2025; c) restrain the respondent from taking any coercive action against the petitioner for not depositing the amount in pursuance to the sanction letter dated 16.07.2025 (Annexure.4); d) any other appropriate writ, order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter pertains to the grant of a license for a retail liquor shop under the applicable Act and Rules, in compliance with the policy for 2025- 2029, particularly the policy dated 29.01.2025. It is submitted that despite detailed guidelines and conditions for the license, as outlined in Paragraph 4.4, the demand for payment of the entire assessment year's amount, as communicated vide letter dated 16.07.2025, is untenable and contrary to law. The relevant para is reproduced herein below:- " एक वरर से कम अवधध के धलये नीलामी की ससधत मे शेर अवधध हेतु नूनतम ररजवर पाईस का धनधाररण अवधध के आधार पर आनुपाधतक रप से धकया जायेगा" 3. It is further submitted that the preliminary objection as raised by the learned AAG is unsustainable, as Commissioner concerned was involved in formulating the policy and granting the [2025:RJ-JP:36097] (3 of 4) [CW-12220/2025] H-1 sanction. Consequently, filing an appeal before the Commissioner would violate the principles of natural justice due to the likelihood of bias. 4. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1088/2000, titled as Paras Ram & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 5. Having heard and considered the learned counsel for the parties, this Court has made the following observations:- 5.1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 9A of the State Excise Act provides for an appeal against any order, letter, or communication to be filed before the competent authority, subject to deposition of the required pre-deposit amount, if applicable. In the present case, the petitioner is aggrieved of the letter dated 16.07.2025 and has approached this Court alleging bias on the part of the Commissioner, who was involved in issuance of the policy and in the decision qua the H-1 sanction. 5.2. That the Commissioner, in this instance, has acted under dual capacity i.e., administrative and appellate, which raises concerns about impartiality and biasness. 5.3. That the issue in the present case requires interpretation of Paragraph 4.4 of the policy to determine whether the authorities are entitled to demand payment for the entire year or on proportionate basis, in addition to addressing the concerns raised in the letter dated 16.07.2025. 6. Taking note of the aforementioned, this Court is of the opinion that no interference is warranted at this stage and the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is [2025:RJ-JP:36097] (4 of 4) [CW-12220/2025] not applicable to the present case, as the matter requires detailed factual analysis. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of. However, this Court directs that if the petitioner files an appeal within a period of three days from the date of this order, the Commissioner shall decide the same within an upper limit of 15 days, in accordance with the law. 8. It is made clear that no prejudice be caused to the petitioner while adjudicating the appeal due to passing of the present order. 9. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /172