Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Ganpat Lal (2023/Rjjd/005873) on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Arun Bhansali, Praveer Bhatnagar
[2023/RJJD/005873]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 401/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Vachana Ram S/o Sava Ram, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village
Sarnau, Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 390/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise) ,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Gita Kanvar W/o Bhagwat Das, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village
Mukhya Abadi Chota, Bhuwana, Sanchore, District Jalore
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 391/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Sumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Rajudan S/o Bhmar Dan, Aged About 21 Years, Village B 39,
Shree Mahavir Chsl Ratan Nagar, Dashisar, East, Mumbai. At
Present Residing At Bhuwana, Sanchore, District Jalore
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 392/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM)
[2023/RJJD/005873] (2 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sanju Pareek W/o Subhash Pareek, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Main Bazar, Lambiya, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali
(Rajasthan).
2. Arti D/o Mitha Lal, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Sanchore,
District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 402/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Ansi Devi W/o Vachana Ram, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vpo
Sarnau, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 403/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Vijay Singh S/o Rawat Singh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 217,
Rajputo Ka Mohalla, Sabalpura, District Sikar, At Present
Sanchore, District Jalore.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 404/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM)
[2023/RJJD/005873] (3 of 9) [SAW-401/2021]
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Ganpat Lal S/o Chaggan Lal, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Thakurji
Ka Mandir Vpo Dabal, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 406/2021
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary (Excise),
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jalore (Rajasthan).
----Appellants
Versus
Nagji Ram S/o Kala Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village
Jalera Khurd, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore.
----Respondent
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with Mr.
Nishan Bapna.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Vishnoi.
Ms. Suchana Kumari.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR Judgment 17/02/2023 These special appeals are directed against the order dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the respondents-petitioners were allowed and the respondents were directed to give relaxation of proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners.
The writ petitions were filed by the respondents-petitioners with the submissions that they were allottees / license-holders of liquor shops for the period 01.04.2020 to 31.03.2021. The (Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM) [2023/RJJD/005873] (4 of 9) [SAW-401/2021] petitioners deposited the license / composite fees (lump sum amount) and Advanced Exclusive Privilege Amount as per the Rules and the terms of license. It is claimed that the respondent department delivered the country liquor to the petitioners on 04.05.2020 though the tenure of the allotted shops started from 01.04.2020 on account of the fact that the country was suffering from COVID Pandemic and Government of India & State of Rajasthan had ordered for closure of all the liquor shops all over the country from 01.04.2020 to 04.05.2020.
Submissions were made that as the previous allottees / license-holders for the year 2019-20 were granted relaxation for the composite fee by the State by its Circular dated 07.04.2020, looking to the fact that there was lock-down for the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020, the State should have provided relaxation in the composite fee for a period of 34 days, proportionately.
The petitions were contested by the respondents on the ground that as per the detailed guidelines & instructions, under which the licenses were allotted, the petitioners were not entitled for any relaxation / compensation for the period the shops remained closed from 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020. Reliance in this regard was placed on Clause 7.3 of the Standard License Conditions.
The learned Single Judge by the impugned order, while taking note of the extra-ordinary circumstances prevailing in the country due to COVID-19 and the fact that the lock-down was imposed, inter-alia, for the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020, (Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM) [2023/RJJD/005873] (5 of 9) [SAW-401/2021] which circumstances were unusual and akin to force majeure found it a fit case for invoking the writ jurisdiction.
Learned Single Judge further observed that the State itself had granted such proportionate relief in the composite fee for the year 2019-20 for the period when lock-down was in existence i.e. from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 and consequently, allowed the petitions and directed the respondents to give relaxation for proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners.
Learned AAG made submissions that the fundamental basis for grant of relief by the learned Single Judge pertained to the fact that the State itself had granted relief in the composite fee for the year 2019-20, for the period when lock-down was in existence i.e. from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020 and therefore, it ought to have extended the same relaxation in the composite fee to the petitioners also, which determination is contrary to the relaxation, which was granted by the State vide Circular dated 07.04.2020.
It is submitted that the Circular dated 07.04.2020, which was filed as Annex.-R/1 in the writ petition, only provided for relaxation for the period 2019-20 in Exclusive Privilege Amount & Special Vend Fee and for the year 2020-21 also, the same was confined to Exclusive Privilege Amount & Special Vend Fee and as such, there was no difference between the relaxation provided for the years 2019-20 & 2020-21 and therefore, such, passing of the order on the said basis is wholly unjustified.
Submissions were also made that further ground indicated on account of the lock-down during the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020 for the purpose of grant of relief also is contrary to the (Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM) [2023/RJJD/005873] (6 of 9) [SAW-401/2021] Standard License Conditions, which specifically provided that any order passed in keeping the shops closed for any special reason, the licensee would not be entitled to any relaxation / compensation and as the respondents had entered into the contract with open eyes aware of the said clause, the grant of relief in composite fee for 34 days is not justified.
Submissions have also been made that merely because the State in its wisdom thought it appropriate to grant relaxation in the amount of Exclusive Privilege and Special Vend Fee, cannot be a reason enough to also grant relaxation in the composite fee and therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be quashed and set-aside.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on Order in Satveer Chaudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10936/2020 and other connected matters, decided on 08.12.2020 (At Jaipur Bench) and Smt. Renu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4470/2020, decided on 17.02.2021, which order was upheld in Smt. Renu v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.218/2021, decided on 09.09.2021.
Learned counsel for the respondent supported the order impugned.
It was submitted that once the State had granted the relaxation in the amount of Exclusive Privilege and Special Vend Fee, there was no reason not to provide the said relaxation in composite fee and therefore, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is justified and the same does not call for any interference.
(Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM) [2023/RJJD/005873] (7 of 9) [SAW-401/2021] We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The learned Single Judge, while ordering for grant of relaxation for proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners, was swayed by the fact that there was lock- down during the period 01.04.2020 to 03.05.2020 and that the State itself had granted such proportionate relief in the composite fee for the year 2019-20 on account of such lock-down for the period from 22.03.2020 to 31.03.2020.
The Excise Policy has been filed as Annex.-A/1 with the additional affidavit in the present special appeals, inter-alia, provided for application fee, exclusive privilege amount, security amount, composite shops, determination of composite fee, which was to be deposited by 31.03.2020. Under Clause 7 of the Standard License Conditions, which clearly dealt with operation of the shops, their timings and other conditions, wherein Clause 7.3 specifically provided that the State Government, Excise Commissioner or the Licensing Authority for special reason could order for keeping the shop closed and in such circumstances, the licensee could not be entitled for any compensation nor there will be any relaxation in the payable amount.
The Division Bench in the case of Satveer Chaudhary (supra), wherein the challenge was laid to the notice / penalty orders passed by the District Excise Officer in both the category of matters i.e. Retail Off Vend matters and composite license matters, wherein the petitioners had sought for consequential reduction in the Basic License Fees, inter-alia, due to COVID-19 (Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM) [2023/RJJD/005873] (8 of 9) [SAW-401/2021] after noticing the contentions of the parties, inter-alia, came to the conclusion that the petitioners having entered into the contract with open eyes, cannot now challenge the terms of contract under the writ jurisdiction and consequently, dismissed the writ petitions.
In the case of Smt. Renu (supra), wherein also re- determination of Exclusive Privilege Amount and composite fee was sought by the petitioners on account of COVID-19 outbreak, the learned Single Judge referring to the judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. M/s C.K.M. & Company : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.212/2017, decided on 10.05.2017, dismissed the writ petition, which was upheld by the Division Bench in the case of Smt. Renu (supra), as such, the determination made by the learned Single Judge on account of the shops remaining closed due to lock-down cannot be sustained.
Further, in the present case, as noticed, the learned Single Judge relied on the fact that such relaxation in the composite fee was granted for the year 2019-20 and as such, there was no reason for not granting the same for the year 2020-21 granted the relief.
The Circular dated 07.04.2020 (Annex.R/1), inter-alia, provided as under :-
"¼2½ o'kZ 2019&20 ds dEiksftV] ns"kh efnjk lewg o vaxzsth "kjkc ds vuqKk/kkjh& ykWdMkmu vof/k 22 ekpZ ls 31 ekpZ] 2020 rd dh vof/k ds ekg ekpZ] 2020 ds fy;s ,dkdh fo"ks'kkf/kdkj jkf"k esa vkuqikfrd NwV nh tkrh gS ,oa lkFk gh Lis"ky os.M Qhl de mBko dh iSuYVh esa ekg ekpZ esa vkuqikfrd NwV nh tkrh gSA ¼3½ o'kZ 2020&21 ds efnjk vuqKk/kkjh & • ekfld fo"ks'kkf/kdkj jkf"k o Lis"ky os.M Qhl dh de mBko dh isuYVh dk ekg vizsy] 2020 ds fy;s ykWdMkmu vof/k esa vkuqikfrd NwV nh tkrh gSA (Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM) [2023/RJJD/005873] (9 of 9) [SAW-401/2021] • o'kZ 2020&21 ds lQy vkosndksa }kjk tks jkf"k fnukad 31-03- 2020 rd tek ugha djk;h x;h mudks ykWdMkmu lekIr gksus dh fnukad ls rhu fnol ds Hkhrj cdk;k Hkqxrku tek djkus dh NwV nh tkrh gSA"
(emphasis supplied) A bare perusal of the above would reveal that for the year 2019-20, the relaxation was granted in amount of Exclusive Privilege and Special Vend Fee only and similarly, for the year 2020-21 also, similar relief was granted by the State and as such, apparently, the determination made by the learned Single Judge, based on alleged relaxation in 'composite fee' for the period 2019- 20 apparently is on account of misreading of the communication dated 07.04.2020 (Annex.R/1), which cannot be sustained.
In view of the above discussion, the order passed by the learned Single Judge directing grant of relaxation in proportionate composite fee for a period of 34 days to the petitioners cannot be sustained.
Consequently, the special appeals are allowed. The orders dated 06.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge are set- aside. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (ARUN BHANSALI),J
23 to 30-Rmathur/-
(Downloaded on 23/02/2023 at 11:39:46 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)