[2025:RJ-JP:46708] (1 of 2) [CW-19167/2024] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19167/2024 Anil S/o Kawar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sohli, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Former Licensee For The Composite Retail Off License Udamandi-Lalamandi (Vill Lalamandi) Area Of Gp Udamandi-Lalamandi, Jhunjhunu Year 2023-24. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Rajasthan, through Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Excise Commissioner, Government of Rajasthan, Udaipur. 3. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Malani For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Udawat for Mr. K.P. Mathur, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Order 19/11/2025 1. After arguing for some time, counsel for the petitioner made a limited prayer for issuing appropriate direction to the respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner in the light of judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4606/2024 titled as Krishna Sharma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan decided on 10.05.2024. 2. The prayer made by the petitioner has not been opposed by counsel for the respondent, however, it is submitted that the issue [2025:RJ-JP:46708] (2 of 2) [CW-19167/2024] with regard to the applicability of the said judgment shall also be kept open to be considered by the respondent No.3. 3. The prayer made by the petitioner deserves acceptance. 4. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to file a fresh representation before respondent No.3, who shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law, with a reasoned and speaking order, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The respondent no.3 shall also consider the applicability of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Krishna Sharma (supra), independently. The entire exercise be completed within a period of one month from date of receipt of this order. 5. It is made clear that directions passed in this order shall not construe to decide the petitioner’s representation in a particular way, and the action is required to be taken in accordance with law. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J PAYAL DHAWAN /146