Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shimla Devi Tak W/O Shri Ramniwaas Tak vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jp:22100) on 10 May, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:22100]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4606/2024
Krishna Sharma D/o Sh. Chhajuram Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Hawala Ki Dhani, Muhana, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5448/2024 Shimla Devi Tak W/o Shri Ramniwaas Tak, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Andheri Chakki Ke Pass, Vrandhwan Nagar, Kishengarh, Ajmer (Rajasthan) Licensee Of Composite Shop G.p. Godiyawas, Shop No.79, Circle Rural, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan)
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur, Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan) (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:48 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (2 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5983/2024 Moti Singh, S/o. Har Bhagat Singh Yadav, Aged About 60 Years, R/o. Kalyanpura, Alwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License, Gp Jat Behror, Bhungada Ahir, Jalawas, Alwar, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Behror
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4332/2024 Smt. Sita Devi W/o Sh. Kanhaiyalal Tak, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 13/488, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (3 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4349/2024 Smt. Vineeta Sharma W/o Sh. Madan Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 63 Bagda Sadan, Ward No. 11, Govindpura, Hatoj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4350/2024 Smt. Mamta Doshi W/o Sh. Gautam Chand, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Near Jain Mandir, Chohatan, Barmer Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (4 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4351/2024 Smt. Preeti Sharma W/o Sh. Kailash Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 63, Bagda Sadan, Ward No. 11, Govindpura, Hatoj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4611/2024 Gajanand Khinchi S/o Sh. Moolchand Khinchi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Near Main Gate, Sadar Bazar, Roopangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (5 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4613/2024 Gajendra S/o Sh. Jivraj, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Plot No. 14, Gourav Nagar 4Th, Muhana, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4764/2024 Sangeeta Jaiswal, W/o. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Ward No. 23, Stanley Road, Civil Lines, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, Licensee For The Composite Shop Kali Bagichi (Ward No. 13,17), Bharatpur
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (6 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4765/2024 Ketan Jaiswal, S/o. Brijendra Thekedar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Natani Mounai Sadak, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Rtdc (Saras) Hotel, Ward No.48, Bharatpur
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4769/2024 Atul Sharma, S/o. Achche Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Plot No. 152-C, Pratap Enclave Mohar Garden, Uttam Nagar, West Delhi, Delhi, Licensee For Composite Shop N.p Dholpur, Shop No. 12, Bajariya (Ward No.48 - 51 - 52 - 53)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dholpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4770/2024 Rajendra Nath Sharma, S/o. Lt. Amarnath Sharma, Aged About 75 Years, R/o. H-4, Sector 23, Sanjay Nagar, Near Nitra (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (7 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Institute, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, License For The Composite Shop, Sua Ka Bag (Gp Dubati- Beelpura - Viparpur - Virondha)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dholpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4809/2024 Piyush Soni S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Soni, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Nadiya Mohalla, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Bharatpur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4822/2024 Babulal Choudhary S/o Sh. Laxminarayan Choudhary, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 3, Shikarpura Road, Pandavo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 31, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (8 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4830/2024 Babulal Choudhary S/o Sh. Laxminarayan Choudhary, Aged About 49 Years, R/o Plot No. 3, Shikarpura Road, Pandavo Ki Dhani, Ward No. 31, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4970/2024 Shanti Bai Suwalka W/o Shri Trilok Chand Suwalka, Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Kalmanda, Baran, Rajasthan And (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (9 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Composite Liquor Shop At Nagar Parishad Baran Bus Stand (Iv) Ward No. 16, 17,37, 38, 39, 39, 40, 46, 47, 50, 51 Baran.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4972/2024 Avinash Shivhare S/o Shri Jamuna Prasad Shivhare, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of I-362, World Bank Colony Barra Kanpur Nagar, Uttar Pradesh And Composite Liquor Shop No. 4 Ward No. 5(H) 7(H) 31(H) 33(H) 32(H) Jaipur
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4975/2024 Lekhraj Saini S/o Kalyan Sahay Saini, Aged About 40 Years, R/o (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (10 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] 25, Fakira Nagar, Nangal Jaisal Bohra, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4976/2024 Geeta Shivhare W/o Shri Dinesh Shivhare, Aged About 46 Years, Resident Of J-5, Patel Nagar, City Center Gird, R.k. Puri Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh And Composite Liquor Shop At Nagar Parishad Baran Susawan(Iv) Ward No. 36, 48, 49, 52 Baran.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4980/2024 Sadhna Rai W/o Shri Parshuram Shivhare, Aged About 38 Years, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (11 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Resident Of 138, Village Sarani, Tehsil Chhatarpur, District Chhatarpur And Composite Liquor Shop No. 1 Ward No. 5(H) 6(H) 7(H) 31(H) 32(H) 33(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4982/2024 Surendra Nagar S/o Shri Gajanand Nagar, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Missai, Baran, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop At Gp Baruni, Chhinod, Shahbad, Baran
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4983/2024 Mahendra Choudhary S/o Kishan Lal Choudhary, Aged About 33 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (12 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Years, R/o 35, Asaram Ki Dhani, Tiwadiwala, Dhankya, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4993/2024 Jai Prakash Son Of Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 48 Years, Resident Of 155, Dhani Baddal Ki Karoli, Bhiwadi, Tehsil Tapukda, District Alwar, Now District Khairthal Tizara Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. The District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Behror, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5001/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (13 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Manohar Lal Gurjar, S/o. Ramkaran Gurjar, Aged About 42 Years, R/o. Toda Wala Bas, Baleta, Alwar, Rajasthan Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Dhamred, Dubbi, Alwar, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5002/2024 Ravi Solanki, S/o. Anil Solanki, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. 6/94, Uit Colony, Bhiwadi, Santhalka, Rajasthan, Licensee For Gp Maseet, Rabhana, Khidarpur, Behror
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Behror
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5004/2024 Meenakshi Gupta W/o Lalit Khandelwal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Kanak Vihar Colony, Gopalpura Road, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Behror Wn 7,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26 Year 23-24 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (14 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Finance Secretary (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Behror.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5005/2024 Kashmina W/o Abdul Khan, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Nangheri, Rabhana, Alwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Tijara Wn 1,23,24,25 Gp Hingwaheda, Virampur, Luhadera, Shahbad, Year 23-24.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Finance Secretary,(Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance(Excies) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Behror.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5007/2024 Dayaram Gurjar, S/o Phularam Gurjar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Poorannagar, Chimanpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For Kotputli Shop No.-4 (Ward No 5 To 17)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (15 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5045/2024 Suresh Mali S/o Sh. Mangal Chand Mali, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Maliyo Ki Dhani, Gagwana, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305023
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5048/2024 Sohan Nath S/o Sh. Kalu Nath, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Village Ladpura Tehsil And District Ajmer, Rajasthan- 305023.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (16 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5056/2024 Lalaram Sharma S/o Sh. Gopal Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Jagwali Ki Dhani, Chawand Ka Mand, Saipura Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5057/2024 Amandeep S/o Sh. Nainu Ram, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Sarafa Bazar, Amloh (P), Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (17 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5058/2024 Kuldeep Mewara S/o Sh. Hanuman Prasad Mewara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sanpla, Kekri Sarwar, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur (Rural), Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5059/2024 Deepak Sharma S/o Sh. Surinder Kumar, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. B-34-956, Chander Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana, Punjab.
----Petitioner (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (18 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5060/2024 Rajo W/o Sh. Dharampal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o Bas Gokal Pharat, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (19 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5063/2024 Dheeraj Mewara S/o Sh. Lekhraj Mewara, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 20/137, Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5064/2024 Vinod Kumar Sethi S/o Sh. Gokal Dass Sethi, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Mohalla Bania, Phillaur, Jalandhar, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (20 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5065/2024 Praveen Kumar S/o Sh. Krishan Lal, Aged About 65 Years, R/o 1224, Ward No. 37,near Krishna Parnami Mandir, Central Post Office, Ludhiana, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5067/2024 Madhu Chopra W/o Sh. Mukesh Chopra, Aged About 53 Years, R/o 1 Ka 13, Jawahar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajsthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (21 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5070/2024 Rajendra Kumar Shrimal S/o Sh. Devi Lal Shrimal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Vatika Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5071/2024 Sagar S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 9-A, Strret No. 6, New Basant Vihar, Grewal Estate, Kakkowal Road, Ludhiana, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (22 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5072/2024 Lali Devi W/o Sh. Kalu Ram Jayaswal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kalal Mohalla, Jasota, Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Dausa, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Dausa.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5073/2024 Savita Meel W/o Sh. Surendra Singh Meel, Aged About 42 Years, R/o A-131, Valmiki Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (23 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5074/2024 Krishna Kumar S/o Sh. Mahavir, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mohalla Guru Nanak Pura, Narnaul Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5075/2024 Dharmender Kumar S/o Sh. Sultan Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 324/2, Mali Tibba, Narnaul Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5076/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (24 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Subodh Kanwar W/o Sh. Madan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 336, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5077/2024 Rajendra Kumar Shrimal S/o Sh. Devi Lal Shrimal, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Vatika Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur (Rural), Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5078/2024 Banwari Singh Nathawat S/o Sh. Nand Singh Nathawat, Aged (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (25 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] About 44 Years, R/o P-5, Sita Nagar 3, Behind Chokhi Dhani, Vatika, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur (Rural), Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5079/2024 Saurabh Katyal S/o Sh. Harish Katyal, Aged About 39 Years, R/o House No. B-34-807, Choti Pulli, Backside Banke Bihari Mandir Chander Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur (Rural), Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5080/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (26 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Tushar Choudhary S/o Sh. Yogendra Kumar Choudhary, Aged About 28 Years, R/o C-3/116, Chitrakoot Yojna, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department Government Secretariat Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5081/2024 Deepak Sharma S/o Sh. Badri Narayan Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 2538 Jailal Munshi Ka Raasta, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (27 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5082/2024 Santosh Kumar Poonia S/o Sh. Sadasukh Poonia, Aged About 48 Years, R/o A-51, Vashishth Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5085/2024 Hot Chand S/o Late Shri Tikam Das, Aged About 67 Years, Resident Of 10A, Mehboob Ki Kothi, Aanasagar, Link Road, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 2 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 69-70 Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (28 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5086/2024 Razi Jafri S/o Shri Khalil Jafri, Aged About 31 Years, R/o 1543, Hawa Chakki Mohalla, Ward No. 3, Chhawani Nasirabad, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 8 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 20-41-42-50-57-58-59 (43-48-49 Sc) Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5088/2024 Vinod Kumar Sethi S/o Sh. Gokal Dass Sethi, Aged About 59 Years, R/o Mohalla Bania, Phillaur, Jalandhar, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (29 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5089/2024 Varun Bedi S/o Sh. Devinder Bedi, Aged About 36 Years, R/o House No. 4147, Saraba Nagar, Near Shiv Mandir, Ward No. 17, Sirhind, Fatehgarh Sahib, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5090/2024 Subodh Kanwar W/o Sh. Madan Singh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 336, Devi Nagar, New Sanganer Road, Sodala Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajsthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (30 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5093/2024 Mamta Devi W/o Sh. Jay Prakash, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Main Bazar, Nimera, Tehsil Phagi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur (Rural), Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5094/2024 Sandeep Poswal S/o Sh. Tarachand, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sunil Traders, Ward No. 20, Purani Sarai, Narnaul, Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur (Rural), Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (31 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5096/2024 Rajendra Sharma S/o Shri Nand Lal, Aged About 63 Years, Resident Of House 590, Bhajanganj, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 5 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 36- 37-38-39 Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5097/2024 Ranjana W/o Late Shri Ajay Kumar, Aged About 59 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 54, Shiv Shakti Nagar Model Town, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur And Composite Liquor Shop No. 2 Ward No. 134(G), 138(G) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (32 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5098/2024 Sabeena Bano W/o Shri Aamin Panwar, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 122, Badet, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop At G.no. 1 N.pa. Rajgarh, Ward No. 11 To 12 Churu.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Churu.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5099/2024 Vikas Kapoor S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o House No. 4834, Haibowal Kalan, Ludhiana, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (33 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5100/2024 Babita Kanwar Kanawat, W/o. Shivraj Singh Kanawat, Aged About 48 Years, R/o. 169, Rajput Colony, Nainwa Road, Pipe Factory Ke Piche, Bundi, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Bundi- Ward No. 4,5,20,21,22,23,24-D, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer Excise Department Bundi
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5101/2024 Surender S/o Sh. Naresh Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Buchawas (68), Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5102/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (34 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal, Aged About 44 Years, R/o New Kartar Nagar, Salemtabari, Ludhiana, Punjab.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5103/2024 Lali Devi W/o Sh. Kalu Ram Jayaswal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Kalal Mohalla, Jasota, Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Dausa, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Dausa.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5104/2024 Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Shivraj Singh, Aged About 48 Years, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (35 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Resident Of 185 Ku 5, Suravagi Mo. Sanod, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 1 Nasirabad Ward No. 2+3+5 District Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5106/2024 Rakesh Bodwani S/o Chandulal Bodwani, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 203, Adarsh Colony, Daudpur, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5107/2024 Saddam S/o Shri Ayub Ali, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of 35, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (36 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Mehnat Nagar Hatwara Road, Hasanpura, Jaipur And Composite Liquor Shop No. 3 Ward No. 39(H), 42(H), 43(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5108/2024 Rajendra Tak S/o Shri Radhe Shyam Tak, Aged About 57 Years, Resident Of 1174, Mozamabad Ka Baya Bhag, Dudu, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 1 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 8-9-10-67-68 Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5109/2024 Nafisa Nagra W/o Shri Aslam Nagra, Aged About 38 Years, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (37 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Resident Of A-33, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 2 Ward No. 9(H), 27(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5110/2024 Krishna Kumar S/o Sh. Mahavir, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Mohalla Guru Nanak Pura, Narnaul Mahendergarh, Haryana.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5112/2024 Satyanarayan, S/o. Gapur Lal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Nehru Bal Vidya Mandir Ke Pass, Gurunanak Colony, Bundi, Rajasthan, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (38 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Licensee For Composite License Bundi- Ward No. 6,7,11,16,18,19-C, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Finance Secretary,(Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5113/2024 Amarjeet Singh S/o Narender Singh Arora, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Delhi Road, Devkheda, Ambedkar Nagar, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5114/2024 Jeet Mal Tak S/o Shri Ram Gopal Tak, Aged About 61 Years, Resident Of 967, Khatik Basti, Ward No. 13, Kharpura, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop At Tidana Ki Dhani- Manpura- Nimbukiya Ki Dhani, (Revenue Village) Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (39 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5115/2024 Tushar Sutradhar S/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad Sutradhar, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of B-306, Rajendra Prasad Colony, Jaiselmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 2 Ward No. 67(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5116/2024 Chameli Devi, W/o Devi Singh, Aged About 69 Years, R/o Nagla Singhada, Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Panchayat Samiti Tiraha, Bayana Road, Bharatpur, Year 23- (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (40 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] 24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5117/2024 Om Prakash Yadav, S/o. Umrao, Aged About 41 Years, R/o. Ahir Bas, Garhi Sawanram, Alwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Bichgaon, Gothada, Harsana, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5118/2024 Sultan Singh, S/o. Karan Singh Nathawat, Aged About 58 Years, R/o. C-126, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Shop -12, Shop -12, Ward No. 49, 50, 51, 52 (Sc), 53 (Sc), 54 (Sc) N.p Sawai Madhopur, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (41 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5119/2024 Chandu Lal Bodwani S/o Jhammat Mal, Aged About 64 Years, R/o 203, Adarsh Colony, Daudpur, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5120/2024 Rajendra, S/o. Prabhulal Suman, Aged About 36 Years, R/o.3 Suman Sadan, Shambhoopura, Kota, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Khatkar-A, Bundi, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (42 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5121/2024 Ram Karan, S/o. Jal Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o. Jal Singh, R/o. Tarwala, Alwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Alwar Wn 56,57 Shop-1, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5122/2024 Anil Rogha S/o Shri Chela Ram Rogha, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Rogha Compound, Anand Nagar Colony, Khairthal, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (43 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5123/2024 Premraj Tank S/o Shri Ramniwas, Aged About 62 Years, Resident Of 145, Opp. Hudco Power House, Morla Road, Lamba Hari Singh, Tonk, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 1 Ward No. 2(G),6(G),7(G) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Officer, Excise Department,jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5124/2024 Baboo Lal Batham S/o Shri Kishan Lal Batham, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Of Ramtapura No.2, Gwalior-3, Gird Gwalior City, Madhya Pradesh And Composite Liquor Shop No. Ward No. 78(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (44 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Officer, Excise Department,jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5125/2024 Deepak Tak S/o Shri Naurat Mal Tak, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of 655/1, Anand Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 3 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 75- 76-77-78-79 Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5126/2024 Nathu Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Ugam Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 58 Years, Resident Of Keharpura Kalan, Jhunjhunu And Composite Liquor Shop No. 4 Ward No. 48 (H), 49(H), Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (45 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5127/2024 Lokendra Singh Gurjar, S/o. Sahab Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o. Kherli Goojar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan Licensee For Composite License Santha (Gp. Santha, Palaanheda), Dausa, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dausa
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5128/2024 Gulmohar W/o. Mukesh, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Gram -Bai, Post- Ghat, Tehsil-Laxmangarh, Ghat, Alawar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Thanarajaji, Shrichandpura, Nayagavbolka, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (46 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5129/2024 Vinshali Shrimal D/o Shri Rajesh Shrimal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 1-Gh-9, Janta Colony, Vaishali Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 2 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No. 72- 73-74 Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5130/2024 Manak Chand S/o Bakta., Aged About 50 Years, R/o Koyla, Baran, Bohat, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Indergarh Ward No. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20-A, Bundi, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (47 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5131/2024 Karan Singh Sikarwal S/o Shri Brijpal Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Deori, Shahbad, Baran, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop At Gp Kelwara, Piplkheri, Unipahadi Shahbad.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5132/2024 Salim Ali S/o Shri Mustak Ali, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of 183, Nangli Saledisingh, Jhunjhunu And Composite Liquor Shop No. 3 Ward No. 1(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (48 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5133/2024 Kalu Ram Meena, S/o. Balasahay Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o. Khuddya Ka Baas, Beeghota, P/o. Bighota, Alwar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Rajgarh Wn 6,7,8,9,10,11,12, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Alwar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5134/2024 Indraj S/o Shri Bhola Ram, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Guda, Jhunjhunu And Composite Liquor Shop No. 5 Ward No. 39(H), 42(H), 43(H) Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (49 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur City.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5135/2024 Hitesh Tak S/o Shri Shiv Prasad Tak, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of 655/1, Anand Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No.4 Ajmer Nagar Nigam Ward No.75,76,77,78,79 Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5136/2024 Kamla Kumari, W/o. Govind Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Nagla Singhada, Bayana, Bharatpur, Rajasthan Licensee For The Composite Shop Mahmadpura, Singhada, Bandhbaretha, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise) Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (50 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bharatpur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5201/2024 Suresh Kumar Choudhary Son Of Shri Ram Gopal Choudhary, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Chula Ki Dhani, Hirnoda, Tehsil- Phulera, Distt.- Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Department Of Excise, Through Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Department Of Excise Through Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan Having Its Office At 2, Gumaniwala Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Department Of Excise Through District Excise Officer, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5211/2024 Sunita Pareta, W/o. Rajaram Pareta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Station Road, Ward No. 14 Nayapura Anta, Baran, Rajasthan, Licensee Of The Composite Retail Shop Gp-Barwa, Jaynagar, Baran, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (51 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5226/2024 Chhotu Ram Gurjar S/o Sh. Gopal Lal Gurjar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Junia, Tehsil Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Ajmer, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5253/2024 Priyanka Kanwar Rathore D/o Sh. Dashrath Singh Rathore, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Rajput Mohalla, Bishanpura, Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Dausa, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Dausa.
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (52 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5258/2024 Ramgopal Meena S/o Sh. Shankarlal Meena, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Bilod, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5272/2024 Khushbu Meena W/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Kuntalwas, Rahuwas, Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Dausa, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Dausa
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5274/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (53 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Sanjay Pareta S/o Shambhudayal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Kumawaton Ka Mohalla, Kanwas, Tehsil Sangod, District Kota (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. The Excise Commissioner, Aabkari Bhawan, 2 Gumaniyawala, Panchvati, Udaipur (Raj.).
5. The District Excise Officer, Kota (Raj.).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5301/2024 Anil S/o Ramprasad, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Nayagaon, Engineering College, Kota, Rajasthan Licensee For The Composite Shop Nagar Palika, Mangrol (I), Ward No. 1 To 35, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5302/2024 Rajender Kumar Keer S/o Babu Lal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Indragarh Road, Ganesh Nagar, Karwar, Bundi, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Bundi, Ward No. (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (54 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] 4,5,20,21,22,23,24-C, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5303/2024 Savitri Devi W/o Bhagwat Prasad, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Panchayat Samiti Ke Samne, Mohalla, Buchahera, Kotputli, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Kalayanpura, Khurd, Aamai, Sundarpura, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner Government of Rajasthan Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Rural Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5306/2024 Rajendra Singh Solanki S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 57 Years, R/o Police Line Road, Bahadur Singh Circle, Bundi.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (55 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Of Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan, Government
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan, Government
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5313/2024 Shish Ram Bhawariya S/o Sh. Bhola Ram Bhanwariya, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Ward No. 10 Bhanwariya Ki Pachlangi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer , Sikar, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Sikar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5357/2024
1. Gajendra Singh Panwar S/o Shri Laxman Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 99 Kheradiya, Purani Basti, Bijoliya, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Pin-311602
2. Dinesh Kumar Rebari S/o Shri Kalulal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Rebari Mohalla, Kotwal Ka Kheda, Mandalgarh, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Pin-311604 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (56 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
3. Kuldeep Singh S/o Shri Himmat Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Khachrol, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Pin-311604
4. Gayatri Devi Dhakar W/o Shri Sanjay Kumar Dhakar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Tharoda, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Pin-311602.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department Government Of Rajasthan.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Bundi, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Bundi, Rajasthan
6. District Excise Officer, Bhilwara, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Bhilwara, Rajasthan
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5426/2024 Dharmveer Gurjar S/o Kailash Chand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bag Ki Dhani, Kishorpura, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Bega Ki Nangal Motuka, Dalputara, Sikar, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (57 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5440/2024 Devi Lal S/o Shri Bhag Chand, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Deo Nagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 104 At Gp Picholiya, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5441/2024 Shankar Lal Kalwar S/o Shri Madan Lal Kalwar, Aged About 47 Years, Resident Of Purviyo Ki Hathai Ke Pass, Tiwadi Mohalla, Bhinay, Ajmer, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop No. 470 At Sobri, Circle Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (58 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5442/2024 Shivtaj, S/o. Mool Chand, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Bhandala, Sikar, Rajpura, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Hasampur, Ghasipura, Sikar, Year 2023- 24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5443/2024 Shyam Singh Solanki S/o Radheyshyam Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ranipura, Tehsil Hindoli, Bundi, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Nagar, Dabeta-Badgaon, Bundi, Year 2023-24.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5446/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (59 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Ghisu Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gordhan Singh Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Maliyo Ki Dhani,ward No.9,brij Vihaar Colony, Kishangarh (Ajmer) Licensee Of Composite Shop Kishangarh(M Ci),ward No. 40-41-42-(43 Sc Ward)-44-To 52 Shop-2,circle Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati , Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer(Rajasthan)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5452/2024 Krishna Mewara W/o Shri Parweg Mewara, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Rapra School Ki Road, Krishapuri, Kishangarh (Ajmer ) Licensee Of Composite Shop Kishangarh (M Ci), Ward No. 40-41- 42-(43 Sc Ward)-44-To 52 Shop-3, Circle Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary, (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (60 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5454/2024 Sunita Tak W/o Shri Mahesh Tak, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Andheri Chakki Ke Pass, Vrandhwan Nagar, Kishengarh, Ajmer (Rajasthan) Licensee Of Composite Shop Licensee Of Composite Shop Kishangarh (Mci), Ward No. 26-27-28-34-35-36-37-38-39 Shop -2, Circle Kishangarh, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5455/2024 Sunil Khandelwal S/o Shri Tara Chand Khandelwal, Aged About 51 Years, Resident Of 867, Atulyam, Hanuman Vihar, B.k. Kaul Nagar, Ajmer And Composite Liquor Shop No. 02 Ward No. 14,15,16,17,18,19,27,28,29,30,31 Bagru, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (61 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5456/2024 Vijay Kumar Tak S/o Shri Narayan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Nayno Ka Vass Bala Shakti, Bilara, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) Licensee Of Composite Shop Ajmer Nagar Nigam, Ward No. 32-33-34-35 Shop-4, Ajmer South, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5497/2024 Vikas Jaiswal S/o Shri Kailash Chandra, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Bareilly Road, Ward No. 17, Abdula Bulding Ke Sammne, Haldwani (Utrarkhand) Licensee Of Composite Shop Ajmer Nagar Nigam, Ward No. 12-13-14-15-16 Shop - 6, Circle Ajmer City, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (62 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5498/2024 Avdhesh Kumar Jaiswal S/o Shri Rajnath, Aged About 72 Years, Resident Of Lokar, Ward No. 02, Gold Gokar Math, Tehri (U.p.) Licensee Of Composite Shop G.p. Balad Circle Beawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5500/2024 Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Naugawa Thakuran, Naugawa, Bareilly (U.p.) Licensee Of Composite Shop Beawar Nagar Palika (Ward No. 24-25-26-40-41-42-43-44-45-46-47 (23 Sc Ward) Circle Beawar, District Ajmer (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Rajasthan).
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (63 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5508/2024 Parveen Singh S/o Shri Vijendra Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 11, Dhani Badhan, Jasrapur, Jhunjhunu, For New Vtc, Rajasthan (333514)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5529/2024 Sanjay Kumar, S/o. Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. Sumerganj Mandi, Bundi, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Balwan-Nawalpura, Bundi, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (64 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5611/2024 Maya Devi Suwalka, W/o. Balkishan Suwalka, Aged About 46 Years, R/o. Totakya Ki Gali, Mehroo Kalan, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Peeplaj (Kekri), Code- 0106039, Ajmer, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5618/2024 Narendra Singh, S/o. Mahendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Kumaharon Ka Mohalla, Matoonda, Bundi, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop, Ward No. 12 To 15, 17, 29 To 40, 43, 44 To 47, 56-B, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5632/2024 Maya C/o Prahalad Bagariya, Aged About 22 Years, R/o (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (65 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Bhamolav, Bhamolao, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Chotta Lamba, Ajmer, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5654/2024 Nand Kishore S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Rishanda, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Rajasthan) Licensee Of Composite Shop, Shop No.01 Tonk Ward No. 3,4,16,17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28 District Tonk(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati , Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5658/2024 Satyender Kumar S/o Shri Mange Ram, Aged About 39 Years, Resident Of Village Dadhi Bana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Dadhi Adampur, Bhiwani, Haryana (127310).
----Petitioner Versus (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (66 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5659/2024 Sant Ram Verma S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of 194, Kudwar, Kurwar, Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh (228155).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5666/2024 Ramkaran Gurjar S/o Sh. Choga Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Gola, Tehsil And District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (67 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Ajmer, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5673/2024 Sanwar Lal Jat S/o Sh. Balu Ram Jat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Khandara, Jadana, Teshil Sarwar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Ajmer, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5674/2024 Devendra Singh Gurjar S/o Sh. Kan Singh Gurjar, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Baghsuri, Bhawani Khera, Nasirabad, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (68 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Ajmer, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5758/2024 Pawan Kumar Yadav S/o Daya Ram Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Dabariya, Post Mahanpur, District Alwar (Now District Kotputli- Behror).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Joint Secretary To The Government, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
4. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Behror.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5759/2024 Megh Singh S/o Ramdeen, Aged About 55 Years, R/o 308, Rawat Bhawan, Near Tejaji Mandir, Samrathpura, Picholiya, District Ajmer.
----Petitioner (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (69 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan,. Government
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan, Government
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, District Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5789/2024 Rahul Pareta S/o Kailash Pareta, Aged About 27 Years, R/o H No. 623 Suman Children School Ke Samne Ki Line, Balakund, Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5792/2024 Ramji Lal S/o Shri Gangaram Shivhare, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Ward No. 3, Dirshan Gali Joura, Morena, Madhyapradesh And Composite Liquor Shop Liwali, Meena Koleta, Tundila, Kakrala, Sawai Mahdopur.
----Petitioner Versus (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (70 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5797/2024 Devendra Prasad S/o Shri Dhani Ram, Aged About 70 Years, Resident Of Near Girls School, Josi Pada, Bari, Dholpur, Rajasthan And Composite Liquor Shop Np Bari No. 5 Saipau Road, Bari Ward No. 1-2-4-8-43-44-45.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dholpur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5799/2024 Sunil Kumar S/o Sh. Shish Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Brahmnano Ka Mohalla, Peepli, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu Rajasthan.
----Petitioner (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (71 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary , Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5800/2024 Ramji Lal S/o Shri Gangaram Shivhare, Aged About 66 Years, Resident Ward No. 3, Darshan Gali Joura, Morena, Madhyapradesh And Compoite Liquor Shop Amawara, Bhanwara, Dungarpada, Dungarpatti, Sawai Madhopur.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5803/2024 Yash Kumar Meena S/o Jagdish Meena, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Padliya Post Gulkheri Tehsil Aklera, Jhalawar, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (72 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhalawar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5824/2024 Kanhaiya Lal Meena S/o Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Ward No.- 18, Shriram Khad Beej Bhandar, Bus Stand, Paota, Jaipur- 303106 (Now District Kotputli), Rajasthan. Rajasthan Excise Composite Liquor Shop Licensee For Gp Tulsipura, Thikriya, District Behror, For The Year-2023-2024.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.
6. District Excise Officer, Behror, District Kotputli, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5882/2024 (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (73 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Kanhaiya Lal Meena S/o Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Ward No-18, Shriram Khad Beej Bhandar, Bus Stand, Paota, Jaipur-303106 (Now District Kotputli), Rajasthan. Rajasthan Excise Composite Liquor Shop Licensee For Gp Bhankhri, Year-2023-2024, Shop Code-4504043, License No-23- 24/4504043.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Behror, B-10, Riico Industrial Area, Behror, District Kotputli, Rajasthan.
6. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5948/2024 Meghraj S/o. Bansi Dhar, Aged About 50 Years, R/o. Saray Road, Krishna Colony, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, Naya Bas, Sikar, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License, Jodhpura (Vill Jodhpura) Area Of Gp Jodhpura, Circle Neema Ka Thana, Sikar, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (74 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sikar
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5949/2024 Hari Singh, S/o. Banna Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Lakha Mada Ka Badiya, Kotda, Kabra, Beawar, Ajmer, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License G.p Kotra, Ajmer, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Ajmer
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5950/2024 Anita Bai W/o. Anirudh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Ankari, Akeri, Baran, Bohat, Rajasthan, Licensee For The Composite Shop Gp Thamli, Baran, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran
----Respondents (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (75 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5951/2024 Sushil Kumar, S/o. Kishan Lal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o. Loyal, Jhunjhunu, Khetri, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License, Bukana, Jhunjhunu, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5952/2024 Ak Trading Company, Through Its Authorized Signatory Sanjeev Shivhare, S/o. S. C Shivhare, Aged About 44 Years, R/o. House No. 31, Saket Nagar, Gird, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, Licensee For Composite License N.p. Dholpur Shop No. 18, Kotla (Ward No. 21-22-23) Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dholpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5953/2024 Anil Kumar Gurjar, S/o. Dhanraj Gurjar, Aged About 34 Years, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (76 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] R/o. Gurjaro Ka Mohalla, Tisaya, Baran, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Gp Kotrisunda, Baran, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Baran
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5954/2024 Dinesh Kumar Sharma, S/o. Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Gram Papri Pura Post Kathoomari, Rajakhera, Kathoomra, Dholpur, Rajasthan, License For Composite Retail Off License Nadanpur (Gp - Nadanpur - Tajpura - Khanpura - Badaria) And Np - Srmtura-1, Code-1101028, Dholpur, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dholpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5963/2024 Santosh Bai, W/o. Ramu Gocher, Aged About 47 Years, R/o. Adalat Ke Samne Ki Gali, Nayapura, Ward No. 18, Lakheri, Bundi, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License Utrana, Bundi, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (77 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5964/2024 Renu, W/o. Bhupender, Aged About 28 Years, R/o. Surpura Kalan, Bhiwani, Haryana, Licensee For The Composite Retail Off License, Lamba, Jhunjhunu, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5965/2024 Babulal, S/o. Suraja Ram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. Mahrampur, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License, Govala, Jhunjhunu, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (78 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5980/2024 Jogendra Kumar S/o Shri Mahavir, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Taleda, Tehsil-Taleda, Bundi
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan Government.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Secretariat, Jaipur. Rajasthan Government.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Bundi.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5984/2024 Rohit Singh, S/o. Sukhveer Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o. 5/250, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Engineering Collega, Kota, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License, Shop No.8, Ward No. 8,21,22 N.p Gangapur City, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (79 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sawai Madhopur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5985/2024 Rahul Shivhare, S/o. Laxmi Narayan Shivhare, Aged About 29 Years, R/o. B 17-18, Ashok Vihar, Tansen Road, Gird, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, Licensee For Composite License Nagar Parishad (Ward No. 35-36-40), Dholpur, Year 2023-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue), State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Dholpur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6006/2024 Vikram Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Ramavtar Yadav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Dhani Kothi Ki Bihar, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (80 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6011/2024 Surender Singh Meel S/o Sh. Gangajal Meel, Aged About 49 Years, R/o A-131, Valmiki Marg, Hanuman Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Jaipur City, Jaipur, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6020/2024 Vijendra Singh S/o Sh. Rajendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Jakharon Ka Bass, Post Khtepura, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (81 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Jhunjhunu, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6021/2024 Manoj Kumar Burdak S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Gothara Tagelan Via Khoor Sikar, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer Sikar, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Sikar.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6037/2024 Pramod Kothari, S/o. Mahtab Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Ward No. 09, Ghandawa, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan, Licensee For Composite License, Bhadunda Khurd (Chichroli), Area Of Vill Bhadunda Khurd Chichroli, Jhunjhunu, Year 23-24
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Finance Secretary, (Revenue) State Of Rajasthan, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Department Of Finance (Excise), (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (82 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Jhunjhunu
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6042/2024 Sonu Kumar Gujar S/o Shri Prahlad Gujar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Ghaas, Tehsil Tonk, District Tonk (Rajasthan) Licensee Of Composite Shop, Shop No. 06 Tonk Ward No. 21,22 (Shop Code- 2604041) District Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6043/2024
1. Ummed Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 16, Village Devariya, Badhava, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh- 458226.
2. Hamir Singh S/o Kishan Singh Rajpoot, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 16, Village - Devariya, Tehsil
- Singoli, Degpuria, Ratangarh, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh- 458226.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Additional Chief Secretary, Finance Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (83 of 110) [CW-4606/2024]
3. Joint Director, Finance (Excise) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. District Excise Officer, Bundi, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6044/2024 Ravi Bairwa S/o Shri Ram Swaroop Bariwa, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Richdi Ka Choraha, Rupadi Ka Beda, Kali Paltan, Tonk (Rajasthan) Licensee Of Composite Shop, Shop No. 02 Tonk Ward No. 3,4,16,17,18,19,20,25,26,27,28 (Shop Code- 2604037) District Tonk (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Finance (Excise) Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. Joint Secretary (Finance) (Excise), Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. The Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Gumaniyawala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Rajasthan).
4. District Excise Officer, District Tonk (Rajasthan).
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Achintya Kaushik Mr. Vikram Singh Mr. Falak Mathur Mr. Salim Khan Gori Mr. Nikhil Simlote Mr. Varnit Jain Mr. Yug Singh Mr. Dheeraj Palia Mr. Amit Malani Mr. K.I. Khan for Mr. Rahul Tiwari Mr. Neeraj K. Tiwari with Mr. Sunil Kumar Lohia Mr. Sumer Singh Ola (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (84 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat with Mr. David Mehala Mr. Rajendra Singh Tanwar with Mr. Gaurav Rathore Mr. Parbat Singh Shaktawat Mr. Najeeb Anwar Khan Mr. Jai Raj Tantia with Mr. Mohit Tantia Mr. Ran Singh with Mr. Saurabh Tiwari Mr. Lakhan Singh Meena Mr. Abhishek Meena Mr. Om Prakash Meena, Mr. Abhinav Tetarwal with Mr. Mukesh Kumar For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, Sr. Advocate and AAG assisted by Ms. Niti Jain Mr. Jay Vardhan Joshi HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL JUDGEMENT RESERVED ON : : 18 & 20/04/2024 JUDGEMENT PRONOUNCED ON : : 10/05/2024 Since this batch of writ petitions share similar facts and common questions of law, they have been heard together and are being decided vide this common order.
For reference, relevant facts from the file of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4606/2024: Krishna Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. are being taken note of.
The petitioner was licence holder to operate a Country Liquor and IMFL/Beer Composite Retail Off Vend i.e. Shop No.1 for Ward No.82-85, Jaipur Municipal Corporation (Greater), Jaipur for the Excise Year 2023-24, i.e., the financial year from 01.04.2023 till 31.03.2024 as per the provisions of the Liquor and Temperance Policy 2022-23 and 2023-24. Life of the licence came to an end on 31.03.2024. Under their new Excise and Temperance Policy 2024- 25, the respondents have offered the existing licence holders an (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (85 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] option for renewal on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions as detailed in its clause 2. The option was to be exercised within a period of 15 days from the date of its issuance, i.e., 01.02.2024, subject to deposition of the renewal fee and other dues, i.e., security amount, advance annual guarantee amount, and yearly licence fee as per the schedule provided thereunder. Since, the petitioner was not interested in renewal of the licence, she did not exercise the option. So left out shops were put to auction; but, despite conducting the auction 4 times, about 4,000 vends remained unsettled. In these circumstances, the respondents issued the impugned order dated 13.03.2024 whereunder, the existing licence holders like the petitioner whose term of licence was expiring on 31.03.2024, are compelled to continue with the vend for a further period of 3 months, i.e., 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024 as per the terms and conditions provided under the Excise Policy 2024-2025. It is alleged that this unilateral extension of the licence period is impermissible under the law. It is further alleged that the order impugned dated 13.03.2024 has been passed on application of the Model Code of Conduct (for brevity, "the MCC") under an order dated 02.01.2024 issued by the Election Commission of India; however, it does not put an absolute embargo on the process of auction for issuance of the liquor licence. It is also averred that vide instruction dated 06.02.2023 issued in tune with the Excise and Temperance Policy for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (for brevity, "the RTDC"), Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Limited (for brevity, "the RSBCL") and Rajasthan State Ganganagar Sugar Mills (for brevity, "the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (86 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] RSGSM") have been given the liberty to operate licenced vends on licence fee system without insistence of any minimum lifting of liquor and the annual guarantee of revenue, which could be adopted for the current excise year as well. It is, therefore, prayed that the order dated 13.03.2024 be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to refund the refundable deposits including the security amount and balance advance annual guarantee.
The respondents in their reply submitted that as per Clause-
II (21)(c) of the MCC, no liquor vend is allowed to be put to auction during its operation even if the process has started. It is stated that upon finding that upto 21.03.2024, i.e., after four rounds of auction, out of total 7665 shops, 4178 shops remained unsettled, closure whereof during the applicability of the MCC may have devastating effect, such as; an increase in the menace of illicit liquor, illegal import from other States, huge revenue loss, the State Government took a conscious decision to grant 3 months extension to all the 4178 licensees whose licence was coming to an end on 31.03.2024. It is averred that the order dated 13.03.2024 is by way of an interim arrangement policy issued to further the object of the existing excise policy 2024-25. It is denied that the order amounts to unilateral extension of the contract inasmuch as the petitioner has signed the counter agreement on 01.04.2021 to abide by the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for brevity, "the Act of 1950"), the rules framed thereunder and the departmental directions issued from time to time. It is further stated that the RSGSM is primarily engaged into production of Country Liquor and RML, and being a (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (87 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] bulk supplier of these products, it cannot hold 4178 shops for retail purpose. It is also averred that the RSBCL is also a Government Company dealing with the bulk sale of liquor to licence holders. Dismissal of the writ petition is, therefore, prayed for.
Reiterating the submissions made in the memo of writ petition, Shri R.B. Mathur- learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that unilateral extension of the contract for a period of 3 months after its expiry vide order impugned dated 13.03.2024 is bad in law. Elaborating his submission, he contended that Section 31 of the Act of 1950 provides for form and conditions of licence etc. including that every licence granted under the Act shall be for the period as State Government may prescribe by rules either generally or in the case of particular licence, as the State Government may direct. Inviting attention of this Court towards the provisions of Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 (for brevity, "the Rules of 1956"), Shri Mathur submits that the term of one year is provided for the category of licence issued to the petitioners by the respondents for the financial year 2023-24 which has come to an end on 31.03.2024 and in view thereof, its unilateral extension beyond 31.03.2024 by the respondents is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that under the extant excise policy dated 01.02.2024, the existing licence holders for the financial year 2023-24 were given an option of renewal for the financial year 2024-25 which was to be exercised within a period of 15 days from the date of issuance of the policy; but, the petitioners did not opt for it and in the garb of implementation of the MCC by (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (88 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] the Election Commission of India, their right of option cannot be curtailed. Shri Mathur contends that even otherwise, the petitioners cannot be compelled to continue with the excise licence, term whereof has already expired against their wishes that too on the new conditions prejudicial to their rights and interests. Referring to the conditions contained in the order dated 13.03.2024, he submits that the extension has been granted on the enhanced annual guarantee amount as also the annual licence fee prescribed for the financial year 2024-25. Shri Mathur submits that the unilateral extension of the licence period amounts to violation of the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties and is hit by Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (for brevity, "the Act of 1872").
Learned Senior Counsel- Shri Mathur further submitted that the order impugned dated 13.03.2024 has been issued in the garb of imposition of the MCC by the Election Commission of India on account of the parliamentary election-2024; but, the MCC does not put an absolute embargo upon right of the State Government to put the liquor vends to fresh auction during its operation.
Drawing attention of this Court towards clause II(21)(c) of the MCC, the learned Senior Counsel submits that it permits fresh auction of the liquor vends with the prior permission of the Election Commission of India. Shri Mathur contends that instruction issued by the Election Commission of India specifically states that only when the extant excise law of the State enables the Government to make an interim arrangement for lifting of the liquor vends, such an arrangement can be made, whereas, no (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (89 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] such provision exists either under the Act of 1950 or under the Rules of 1956.
Lastly, Shri Mathur submitted that the respondents while unilaterally extending the licence after its expiry, failed to consider that clause 2.13 of the Excise and Temperance Policy 2024-25 enables the Government to give the unsettled shops to the Government entities like RTDC, RSBCL and RSGSM and if the State is so concerned with the loss of excise revenue during the operation of the MCC, it could have adopted such mode. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 13.03.2024 be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to refund the refundable deposits.
Shri Mathur, in support of his submissions, relies upon the following judgments:
1. CWP No.5573 or 2014 (O & M): Karambir Nain Vs. The State of Haryana and Others decided on 11.07.2014 which was affirmed in SLP(C) No. 32734/2014 dated 05.03.2020;
2. Delhi Development Authority Vs. Joint Action Committee, 2008 (2) SCC 672.
Per contra, Shri Bharat Vyas, learned Sr. Counsel and Additional Advocate General, defending the order dated 13.03.2024, submits that it partakes the characteristic of a policy decision of the State Government and the scope of judicial intervention in the policy decision being very narrow and limited, warrants no interference by this Court. He submitted that in the wake of the MCC, the auction procedure could not be completed for the liquor vends and upto 21.03.2024, out of total 7665 shops, (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (90 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] only 3448 shops could be settled leaving 4178 shops unsettled closure whereof, during the period of the MCC is bound to have devastating effect leading to an increase in its illegal import from other States which may be a big concern during the election period. Shri Vyas submitted the loss of revenue on account of almost 55% of the total liquor vends remaining unsettled was also one of the compelling reasons for taking a conscious decision by the State Government to extend the period of the existing licence holders whose interests have also been taken care of in the order dated 13.03.2024 inasmuch as it provides that if the subject shop fetches the annual guarantee, on being put to auction/allotment after expiry of the extended period, lesser than the prescribed annual guarantee amount, corresponding amount would be reduced from the annual guarantee amount leviable from the existing licence holders for the extended period, i.e., the period from 01.04.2024 to 30.06.2024. He submits that under clause 2 of the order, a further concession has been given to charge 1/4th of the annual licence fee in 3 equal monthly installments or after lifting the minimum guarantee supply. He submits that the excise policy 2024-25 is inherently ingrained in the order dated 13.03.2024 which has been issued to meet an extraordinary situation only as an interim measure. Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the excise contract being statutory in nature, the petitioners are bound by its terms and conditions.
Referring to the agreement dated 01.04.2021 executed in between the petitioners and the State Government for the financial year 2021-22, he submits that the petitioners have executed a counter-agreement to abide by the terms of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (91 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] licence, the provisions of the Act of 1950, the rules framed thereunder as also the directions issued by the Department from time to time. Shri Vyas submits that it is also so stipulated in clause 1 of the agreement which further provides vide its clause 14 that the Excise and Temperance Policy for the years 2022-23 and 2023-24, the departmental orders/circulars and the directions issued by the State Government/Department from time to time thereunder would be final. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners cannot be permitted to turn around and raise the grievance against the order dated 13.03.2024 issued by the State Government in accordance with the terms of the agreement executed between the parties.
Shri Vyas, referring to and relying upon the provisions of Rule 73(c) and (d) of the Rules of 1956, would submit that a licence for retail liquor sale may be granted for a period exceeding one year or for any part of the financial year.
Countering the submission of learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioners that the MCC enables the State Government to seek prior permission of the Election Commission of India for carrying out auction of the licence vends even during its currency, Shri Vyas submitted that the Excise Department is not expected to enter into any such exercise when whole of the State machinery is preoccupied in the election process which is the paramount consideration in a democratic set up of Government.
Learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioners have no right to raise their voice against the order dated 13.03.2024 in view of the well settled legal principle that right to trade in liquor is not a fundamental right and the State is (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (92 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] empowered to impose reasonable restrictions on a person dealing in liquor trade. He submits that such obligation also flows from the contract entered into between the parties as also from the statute.
He, therefore, prays that the writ petitions be dismissed.
Shri Bharat Vyas relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions:
1. Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India: (1994) 6 SCC 651:
2. Vivek Narayan Sharma Vs. Union Of India: (2023) 3 SCC 1;
3. State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Devans Modern Breweries Ltd. and Anr.: (2004) 11 SCC 26;
4. Andhra Sugars Limited Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1968 SC 599;
5. State of Karnataka and Ors. Vs. M/s Sri Chamundeswari Sugar Ltd.: (2008) 7 SCC 469.
Heard. Considered.
Indisputably, term of the excise licence granted to the petitioners and the agreements executed in between the parties for operating the liquor vend have expired on 31.03.2024 by efflux of time. In view thereof, the moot question for consideration for this Court is whether the State alone is empowered to extend its term that too on the terms and conditions as per the new Excise and Temperance Policy 2024-25. Shri Bharat Vyas has submitted that this right of extension flows from the statutory provisions as also from the terms of the contract which is statutory in nature.
To better appreciate the aforesaid submission, it would be beneficial to examine broadly the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Rules of 1956 dealing with the retail sale of liquor.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (93 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Under the Act of 1950, liquor is an excisable item and Section 20 provides that sale of the excisable article without a licence is prohibited. Section 21 provides inter alia that no excisable article shall be sold, otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted in this behalf.
Section 24 of the Act lays down that subject to the provisions of Section 31, the Excise Commissioner may order the grant to any person of a licence for the exclusive privilege-
(1) ...........
(2) of selling by wholesale or by retail, or (3) ..........
Section 31 provides that every licence, permit or pass granted under this Act, shall be granted-
(a) ...........
(b) ............
(c) ...............
(d) ...............
(e) for such periods as the State Government may prescribe by rules either generally or for any class of licenses, permits or passes or as the State Government may direct for any particular licence, permit or pass."
Rule 57 of the Rules of 1956 provides that retail licences may be granted either (1) by auction or, (2) on commission basis or, (3) on guarantee system. Chapter VII of the Rules lays down the procedure for award of licences through auction. Chapter VII-A provides the procedure for issuance of licence under the guarantee (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (94 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] system. Chapter VII-B speaks of issuance of licence on payment for exclusive privilege.
Rule 68 lays down, inter alia, the term for certain licences including the licence for retail vend which is one year. For ready reference, Rule 73 whereupon, a heavy reliance has been placed upon by the learned Additional Advocate General, is quoted hereinunder:
"73. Period of licence for retail sales - (1) Except otherwise provided Licence for the retail sale of excisable articles shall ordinarily be granted for one year corresponding to the financial year of the Government subject to the following exceptions-
(a) A licence granted during the course of the financial year shall expire at the mid- night of the last day of the financial year.
(b) Licence granted for particular occasion shall be valid only for that occasion, (deleted by GSR 88 No.F-11(76)FD/Ex/2003 dated 3.2.2010).
(c) Licences for the retail sale of country liquor, foreign liquor and Hemp drugs may be granted for a period exceeding one year by or with special sanction of the Excise Commissioner and .
(d) Licence for the retail sale of country liquor may be granted for any part of the financial year by or with the sanction of the Excise Commissioner.
(2) Licences for the wholesale manufacture or supply of liquor may be granted for a period not exceeding five years."
From the conspectus of the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder dealing with the issuance of licence for retail sale of liquor, this Court finds that the liquor can be sold in retail only under a valid licence granted thereunder and there exists no provision for its grant by extension after its expiry by efflux of time.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (95 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Reliance placed by Shri Vyas-learned Additional Advocate General upon the provisions of Rule 73(1)(c) and (d) of the Rules of 1956 is of no assistance to him. Clause (c) provides that a licence may be granted for a period exceeding one year. However, in the present case, vide order impugned dated 13.03.2024, the term of the licence already expired is sought to be extended, which can, by no stretch of imagination, be said to be granting of a licence for a period exceeding one year. Similarly, sub-rule (d) of Rule 73 provides that the licence for retail sale of country liquor may be granted for any part of the financial year. This is also not the situation here. The petitioners have not been granted licence for a part of the financial year following any of the procedures laid down either under Chapter VII or, under VII-A and VII-B of the Rules, 1956. This position gets clearer if this provision is kept in juxtaposition with the provisions contained under Rule 66 of the Rules of 1956 which provide for issuance of a licence for any part of the financial year in the contingencies stipulated therein such as its cancellation or suspension. In view thereof, this court is not convinced that the statutory provisions contained in the Act of 1950 and/or the Rules of of 1956 authorised the State Government to extend the term of the subject licences after their expiry by efflux of time.
Similarly, the submission made by learned Additional Advocate General that the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 01.04.2021 enabled the State Government to extend the tenure of the excise licence after its expiry, does not find favour with the Court. The counter agreement signed by the petitioners (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (96 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] simply says that they are bound by the conditions stipulated in the licence, the provisions contained in the Act of 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder, the terms and conditions appended alongwith the application form as also the departmental directions issued from time to time. Similar recital is contained in clause-1 of the agreement. Clause 14.6 of the agreement further lays down that the provisions of the excise and temperance policy 2022-23, 2023-24, the departmental circulars/orders issued thereunder as also the orders/directions issued by the State Government/Department with regard to liquor shops shall be final.
This Court is at loss to comprehend as to how the aforesaid stipulations in the agreement empowered the State-one of the parties to it, to extend unilaterally its term after its expiry by effflux of time. Obviously, the parties to the agreement have to abide by its terms and conditions. The petitioners were also under an obligation to ensure compliance of the terms and conditions attached with the licence and the directions/orders issued by the State Government as also by the Department from time to time;
but, with a caveat. This obligation commensurated with the life of the excise licence and subject to the same being just, fair and within the legal framework. In the instant cases, as already held, vide order impugned dated 13.03.2024 the petitioners have been asked to operate the retail vends after expiry of the period of agreement/licence by efflux of time and the learned Additional Advocate General has failed to point out any such condition in the agreement which compels the licence holders to abide by the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (97 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] unilateral extension of its term after its expiry that too on the terms and conditions prejudicial to their rights and interests.
There is another important aspect of the matter. The order impugned dated 13.3.2024 speaks of extension of life of the excise licence expired on 31.3.2024 till 30.6.2024. It is trite law that extension of a contract can be on the same terms and conditions that too only if the parties agree to it and if its terms and conditions are changed, it amounts to creation of a new contract. Under the Act of 1872, free consent of the parties to the contract is one of the essential pre-requisite for its validity.
Indisputably, in the present case, the agreement between the parties for the year 2023-24 has come to an end on 31.3.2024 by efflux of time and the order dated 13.3.2024 tantamounts to imposition of new contractual obligations upon the petitioners without their consent; rather, against it. In view thereof, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the order dated 13.3.2024 creates no enforceable contract in the eye of law and is non-est. The Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Karambir Nain (supra), dealing with a case wherein, during the validity period of the excise licence, the State changed its terms unilaterally on account of an order passed by the Court in a public interest litigation relating to liquor vends on the National Highways, held as under:
"22. From the above, it emerges that the petitioner in terms of the excise policy is entitled to claim equality in the grant of exclusive right or privilege of manufacturing or selling liquor. The arbitrary action of the State even in liquor licence matters is amenable to challenge. Further, once an agreement is reduced (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (98 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] to writing, it shall be binding on the parties to the agreement and no party has any right to relieve itself of its contractual obligations unilaterally. Still further, the action of the State in altering, modifying or withdrawing any contractual obligation unilaterally would entitle the petitioner to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
23. Examining the factual matrix herein, it may be noticed that as per excise policy, the State had formulated Excise policy for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The unit of allotment of retail liquor outlets of country liquor and IMFL was to be group-wise. A group would comprise of a maximum number of three contiguously located retail outlets of either country liquor or IMFL. The petitioners had bid for the groups of liquor vends and accordingly composite licence was issued by the State. The licence fee had been determined for the entire group as a unit. In CWP No.25777 of 2012 decided on 18.3.2014, it has been directed that no liquor vend shall be permitted to be opened on the National or State Highway with effect from 1.4.2014. In such a situation, the petitioners have been asked to close down or shift retail liquor vends on the National or State Highway being affected vends but required to continue with the other vends of the group which do not fall on National or State Highway. There is alteration in the terms of the licence. Alteration cannot be enforced unless both the parties agree to it. The terms of licence are, although statutory in nature, cannot be unilaterally changed by the State in between the licence period, without either seeking consent of the licensees or without giving opportunity to the licensee to repudiate the contract. The licence fee for all the three vends was single and there was no vend-wise bifurcation of the licence fee. The method of calculation of licence fee adopted by the State upon the quota of each vend cannot be imposed unilaterally on the liquor vends without their consent. None of these clauses or eventuality had been provided in the excise policy for the year 2013-14 and 2014-15. No provision under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 or the Haryana Liquor Licence Rules, 1970 had been shown which empowered the State to change the terms of the licence during the currency of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (99 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] licence or change the location of the vends. The State cannot be permitted to change the rules of the game announced at the time of Excise policy unilaterally. Moreover, the State is in the present situation because of its own doing as would be apparent from the following observations of the Division Bench in Safe Arrive's case (supra):-
"The problem was aggravated on account of the fact that the State of Haryana came up with the Policy for two years for the first time when the lis was already pending before this Court and we were of the view that the endeavour was to avoid the possible rigors of the orders which may be passed in these proceedings, especially as the State of Haryana had been taking time on more than one occasion to file response. We were, thus, influenced by the fact that the Liquor Policy for the State of Haryana purported to be for a period of two years and taking cue from what was stated by the State of Punjab, we were willing to give concession also to the State of Haryana till 31.3.2014 so that a new regime came into play with effect from 1.4.2014. As noticed above, the endeavour of the State of Haryana to challenge the said direction passed by this Court before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has not been successful.'
24. It is concluded that wherever a composite liquor licence has been issued relating to liquor vends on National or State Highway alongwith liquor vends in rural area, the State shall not be entitled to enforce clause 2B of the amended policy against such licencees without their consent. As a consequence, such licencees shall not be obliged to continue with the vends in rural area against their express affirmative response. The State shall be entitled to recover the licence fee from such licencees till 31.3.2014. However, it is clarified that wherever, such licencees had operated vends in the rural area from 1.4.2014, they shall not be entitled to any benefit under this order as their continuance would amount to implied consent on their part to operate the unaffected vends located there."(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:49 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (100 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] In the aforesaid case, thus, it was held that licensees are not obliged to continue with the vends on the terms and conditions altered unilaterally even during the licence period. The SLP No.32734/2014 preferred thereagainst also came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 5.3.2020.
Similarly, in the case of Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Ors. (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while quashing the policy decision of the Delhi Development Authority to levy a surcharge of 20% on the price worked out as per old formula, held as under:
"66. The stand taken by DDA itself is that the relationship between the parties arises out of the contract. The terms and conditions therefor were, therefore, required to be complied with by both the parties. Terms and conditions of the contract can indisputably be altered or modified. They cannot, however, be done unilaterally unless there exists any provision either in contract itself or in law. Novation of contract in terms of Section 60 of the Contract Act must precede the contract-making process. The parties thereto must be ad idem so far as the terms and conditions are concerned. If DDA, a contracting party, intended to alter or modify the terms of contract, it was obligatory on its part to bring the same to the notice of the allottee. Having not done so, it, relying on or on the basis of the purported office orders which are not backed by any statute, new terms of contract could (sic not be) thrust upon the other party to the contract. The said purported policy is, therefore, not beyond the pale of judicial review. In fact, being in the realm of contract, it cannot be stated to be a policy decision as such."(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (101 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] The cases in hand are situated on a much better footing than the aforesaid cases inasmuch herein, there is no subsisting contract between the parties and the order impugned dated 13.3.2024 endeavors to create new contractual obligations unilaterally to which the parties are not ad idem. Therefore, in the backdrop of the aforesaid precedential law also, the order dated 13.3.2024 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Submission of learned Additional Advocate General that the subject agreement being statutory in nature, it is binding on the parties and the petitioners cannot turn around to deny the obligations created vide order dated 13.3.2024, has no legs to stand. Firstly, there is no subsisting contract between the parties post 31.3.2024. Secondly, when inquired by this Court as to why the agreement between the parties is being reckoned as statutory in nature, Shri Vyas submitted that since the State Government has parted, under the agreement, with its exclusive monopoly to deal in liquor trade, it is statutory in nature. However, this Court is not satisfied that this fact is sufficient to reckon the subject agreement as the statutory agreement. Which contract can be construed as the statutory contract has succinctly been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the case of India Thermal Power Ltd. Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.-(2000) 3 SCC 379, as under:
"11.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Merely because a contract is entered into in exercise of an enabling power conferred by a statute that by itself cannot render the contract a statutory contract. If entering into a contract containing the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (102 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] prescribed terms and conditions is a must under the statute then that contract becomes a statutory contract. If a contract incorporate certain terms and conditions in it which are statutory then the said contract to that extent is statutory. A contract may contain certain other terms and conditions which may not be of a statutory character and which have been incorporated therein as a result of mutual agreement between the parties. Therefore, the PPAs can be regarded as statutory only to the extent that they contain provisions regarding determination of tariff and other statutory requirements of Section 43-A(2). Opening and maintaining of an Escrow Account or an Escrow Agreement are not the statutory requirements and, therefore, merely because PPAs contemplate maintaining Escrow Accounts that obligation cannot be regarded as statutory."
The learned Additional Advocate General has pointed out no such terms and conditions in the subject agreement on account of which it can be said to be the statutory contract. Even otherwise, as already held, even if had the subject agreement been statutory in nature, it would not have cured the illegality attached with the order dated 13.3.2024 as discussed hereinabove.
Reliance placed by Shri Bharat Vyas on the judgement in the case of Andhra Sugars Ltd. (supra) to canvass that the agreement being statutory in nature, is binding upon the petitioners, is misplaced. In this case, the validity of Section 21 of the Andhra Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Act, 1961 was under challenge which provided for levy of tax on purchase of sugarcane by or on behalf of petitioners, i.e., sugar factories from the cane growers being ultra vires to the powers of the legislature under Entry No.54 List-II Schedule-7 of the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (103 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Constitution inasmuch to constitute "purchase of goods" within this entry, there must be an agreement for purchase of goods and passing of property therein whereas, there was absence of any such agreement of purchase and sale between the parties.
In was appreciated by the Apex Court that the Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Sugarcane (Regulation of Supply and Purchase) Rules 1951 framed under the Act provides that a canegrower or a canegrower's co-operative society may within 14 days of the order declaring an area as the factory zone or such extended time as may be fixed by the Cane Commissioner, offer in Form No. 2 to supply cane grown in that area to the occupier of the factory and such occupier of the factory within 14 days of the receipt of the offer shall enter into an agreement in Form No. 3 or Form No. 4 with the canegrower or the canegrower's co-operative society as the case may be for the purchase of the cane offered. Form No. 3 is the statutory form of agreement with a canegrower. By the agreement in Form No. 3 the occupier of the factory agrees to buy and the canegrower agrees to sell during the crushing season certain sugarcane crop grown in the area at the minimum price notified by the Government from time to time upon the terms and conditions mentioned in the agreement.
It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court, inter alia, as under:
"xxxxxxxxxxx Now, under Act No. 45 of 1981 and the Rules framed under it, the canegrower in the factory zone is free to make or not to make an offer of sale of cane to the occupier of the factory. But if he makes an offer, the occupier of the factory is bound to accept it. The resulting agreement is recorded in writing and is signed by the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (104 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] parties. The consent of the occupier of the factory to the agreement is not caused by coercion, undue influence, fraud, misrepresentation or mistake. His consent is free as defined in S. 14 of the Indian Contract Act though he is obliged by law to enter into the agreement. The compulsion of law is not coercion as defined in Sec.15 of the Act. In spite of the compulsion, the agreement is neither void nor voidable. In the eye of the law, the agreement is freely made. The parties are competent to contract. The agreement is made for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and is not void under any provisions of law. The agreements are enforceable by law and are contracts of sale of sugarcane as defined in S. 4 of the Indian Sale of Goods Act. The purchases of sugarcane under the agreement can be taxed by the State legislature under Entry 54, List II.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx One of the objects of Act No. 45 of 1961 is to regulate the purchase of sugarcane by the factory owners from the canegrowers. The canegrowers scattered in the villages had no real bargaining power. The factory owners or their combines enjoyed a near monopoly of buying and could dictate their own terms. In this unequal contest between the canegrowers and the factory owners, the law stepped in and compelled the factory to enter into contracts of purchase of cane offered by the canegrowers on prescribed terms and conditions.xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
"xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Under Act No. 45 of 1961, a canegrower makes an offer to the occupier of the factory directly and the latter accepts the offer. The parties then make and sign an agreement in writing. There is thus a direct privity of contract between the parties. The contract is a contract of sale and purchase of cane, though the buyer is obliged to give his assent under compulsion of a (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (105 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] statute. The State Legislature is competent to tax purchases of canes made under such a contract.xxxxxxxxx"
From the aforesaid observations, it is apparent that there was a privity of contract in between the factory owners and the cane growers though the buyers were obliged to give their consent under compulsion of Statute. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that it was to create level playing field for the cane growers who were scattered in the villages having no real bargaining power whereas, the factory owners enjoy a monopoly of buying and could dictate terms. However, as already held, no such situation obtains in the instant cases. No statutory provision compels the petitioners to abide by the unilateral creation of new contractual obligation vide order impugned dated 13.3.2024.
In the case of State of Karnataka & Ors. (supra), the question involved was levy of purchase tax on which of the three prices; the `minimum statutory price' fixed by the Government of India in exercise of its power under clause (3) of the Sugarcane Control (Order), 1996, the price fixed by the Government of Karnataka payable to sugarcane growers by the sugar factories as `State Advised Price' or the price paid by the sugar factories to the sugarcane growers under the agreement entered in between them. After appreciating and analysing the statutory provisions, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the highest amongst the three prices is the price on the basis of which the purchase tax is leviable. In this case, the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sukhnandan Saran Dinesh Kumar vs. Union of India-
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (106 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] (1982 (2) SCC 150) was also referred wherein, it was held that in order to protect the sugarcane growers who are not in a position to negotiate, the Government can prescribe terms in a contract which the occupiers of the sugar factories have to enter into. It was further held that the proposition is now beyond the pale of controversy that the State can impose a restriction in the interest of general public on the right of a party to contract where in its opinion, the contracting parties are unable to negotiate on the footing of equality whereas, in the cases in hand, one of the parties to the contract is the mighty State Government which, with scant respect to the rights of the petitioners, have endeavoured to thrust upon them new cumbersome contractual obligations unilaterally.
The heavy reliance placed on the MCC by the learned Additional Advocate General to support the order dated 13.3.2024 is of no help to him. A perusal of the MCC reflects that it does not put an absolute embargo on the State Government to conduct auction of the liquor vends even during its validity. Clause II (21)
(c) of MCC in no uncertain terms permits fresh auction of the liquor vends with the prior permission of the Election Commission of India. Reasons furnished by Shri Vyas for not resorting to the aforesaid exercise do not merit acceptance. His contention that it also enables the State Government to take such interim measures as provided under the extant excise law is misconceived inasmuch as it has already been held by this Court that there is no provision either under the Act of 1950 or under the Rules of 1956 empowering the State Government to extend the term of (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (107 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] licence/agreement after its expiry by efflux of time that too on new terms and conditions which virtually amounts to creation of a new contract. His second submission in this regard that on account of engagement of the entire State machinery in the Parliamentary Election-2024, it was not feasible for it to continue with the auction process with prior permission of the Election Commission of India, does not convince this Court; firstly, for the reasons that while providing for such a provision in the MCC, it cannot be assumed that the Election Commission of India was not aware of the aspect of the deployment of the State machinery in the election process and secondly, except making a bald averment that it is not so feasible, no concrete data has been submitted by the State in support thereof.
Further, the reason furnished by the State not to resort to clause 2.13 of the Excise and Temperance Policy-2024-25 which enables the State Government to give the unsettled shops to the Government entities like RTDC, RSOCL and RSGSM, is totally unsatisfactory. It has not been denied by the State that in the previous years, the unsettled liquor vends were given to these entities for retail sale of the liquor. Moreover, although, in its reply, the State has come out with a plea that even after the fourth round of auction, 4178 retails shops could not be settled; but, during the course of arguments, Shri Bharat Vyas was fair enough to admit that only 200 odd liquor vends comprising mostly of the petitioners before this Court have remained unsettled. In view of this meager number, the aforesaid government entities could always have been asked upon to take charge of the unsettled (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (108 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] shops which would have catered to all the concerns of the State Government in issuing the order impugned dated 13.3.2024 in the wake of MCC.
Contention of Shri Bharat Vyas, learned AAG that it is not permissible for the petitioners to raise any grievance against the order dated 31.3.2024 inasmuch as right to trade in liquor is not a fundamental right and the State Government can always put reasonable restrictions in it, requires not much deliberation inasmuch, there cannot be any two views against the proposition that not to carry on trade in liquor especially, it not being an essential commodity, in absence of any statutory or contractual obligation/compulsion is the fundamental right of the petitioners which is impinged upon vide order dated 13.3.2024. For this reason also, the order dated 13.3.2024 deserves to be quashed and set aside.
The judgement of the Constitution Bench in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. (supra) does not come to rescue of the respondents wherein, validity of levy of tax on import of potable liquor manufactured in other States was under challenge. It was held that conduct of the respondent licensees in an attempt to wriggle out of his contractual obligations cannot be countenanced having fully exploited the advantage flowing from the contract to the exclusion of the others and having reaped rich commercial benefits from that activity by challenging, inter alia, any particular condition of that contract/licence. However, these observations were made as the levy of import tax was contemplated under the (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:22100] (109 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] terms of the contract; whereas, in the present cases, the facts are not identical. As already held, the terms of the agreement executed between the parties did not entitle the State Government to unilaterally extend its term after expiry by efflux of time that too with new terms and conditions onerous to the licence holders.
This Court is in respectful agreement with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Tata Cellular (supra) and Vivek Narayan Sharma (supra) relied upon by the learned Additional Advocate General to canvass his submission that scope of judicial review in policy matters; specially and specifically in economic matters, is very narrow and limited.
However, the same has no applicability in the cases in hand for the reasons; firstly, this Court is not convinced that the order impugned dated 13.3.2024 falls within the mischief of "policy decision"; rather, it is an administrative order issued allegedly to meet an exigency created on account of MCC. The policy decision is a decision laying down broad guidelines to govern the affairs in long term based thereon beyond running day to day affairs and the order dated 13.3.2024 fails to meet this criteria. Secondly, even assuming it to be a policy decision, it is not sacrosanct and beyond the reach of judicial review and deserves to be quashed and set aside for the reasons expressed hereinabove.
In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions deserve to be allowed.
(Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM)[2024:RJ-JP:22100] (110 of 110) [CW-4606/2024] Resultantly, the writ petitions are allowed. The order impugned dated 13.3.2024 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the refundable dues to the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today failing which it shall carry an interest @ 6% per annum from today.
Office to place a copy of this judgement in each connected file.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J RS/ (Downloaded on 15/05/2024 at 08:50:50 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)