Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Mahipal vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6017/2025
Jamana W/o Jetha Ram, Aged About 60 Years, R/o Jasotaniyon
Ki Dhani Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Barmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5498/2025
Ram Panchmala S/o Shyam Panchmala, Aged About 20 Years, R/
o Sector 2 Baba Ramdev Road Masuriya District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5501/2025
Jhilmil Mewara D/o Champa Lal Mewara, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Sayra, Tehsil Gogunda, Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (2 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5502/2025
Nirmala Devi Choudhari W/o Jaswant Kumar Choudhari, Aged
About 54 Years, R/o 33 E Block Adarsh Nagar Univar Sity Road,
Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5503/2025
Manoj S/o Tarachand, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Charbhuja
Mandir Ke Pas Guda Chatura, District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5504/2025
Priya W/o Vasu, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Old Railway Crossing
Nut Basti Masuriya, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (3 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5507/2025
Akhilesh Suwalka S/o Banshilal Suwalka, Aged About 57 Years,
72 Aklingji Nagar Goverdhan Vilas District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5508/2025
Kamla Devi Sisodia W/o Pukhraj, Aged About 79 Years, Rajiv
Gandhi Colony Pal Link Road, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5509/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (4 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Namit Chouhan, 63 Umaid Heritage Defence Lab Road Jodhpur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5510/2025
Pista W/o Jiyaram, Aged About 41 Years, Vijay Nagar, Kudi
Bhagtasani, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5513/2025
Mahaveer S/o Ratanlal Mewada, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Gokuldam Appartment Surat Gujarat
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5514/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (5 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Joshi Siddhi D/o Bansilal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Surat,
Gujarat.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5516/2025
Harsh Kumar Suwalka S/o Uankarlal, Aged About 55 Years, R/o
60 Gariyavas District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5517/2025
Subham Kalal S/o Govindram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Pratap
Colony, Shastri Circle Vilas District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (6 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5518/2025
Yashoda Hemant Mewada W/o Hemant Mewada, Aged About 36
Years, R/o Gokuldham Appartment, Surat, Gujarat.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5593/2025
Poonam Chand S/o Mohanram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Khariya Patawan District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5594/2025
Rajesh Mewara S/o Prakash, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Jhandol
Gorana Road Dudhkiya District Udaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (7 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5595/2025
Prem Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No.
2, Bannasar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5598/2025
Divya Kumar Gangwani S/o Murlidhar Gangwani, Aged About 39
Years, R/o 203 Parti Bhawan Subhash Chouk Ratanada District
Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5599/2025
Poonam Singh S/o Ridmal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (8 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5601/2025
Jitu Singh S/o Kalyan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bagadsar
Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5604/2025
Bulaki Sharma S/o Marvanlal Sharma, Aged About 52 Years,
Sevgo Ki Bagichi, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5610/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (9 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Babita Kanwar W/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 37 Years, B 82
Mataji Ke Mandir Ke Pas Sardulganj District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5613/2025
Mms Construction Company, Through Proprietor Ramsingh S/o
Bheru Singh, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Vijay Petrol Pump Ke
Samne Tilk Nagar, District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5655/2025
Santosh Mewara W/o Dolatraj, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Sonana
Bheruji Mandir Ke Pas Shekhawas District Pali.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (10 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5656/2025
Omaram S/o Bhairaram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward No. 9
Purani Abadi Near Ravi Chowk Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Churu.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5658/2025
Rajan Singh Rathore S/o Laxman Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Kailashpuri Lalgarh District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5659/2025
Kramod Kanwar W/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Ward No. 16 Nya Bas Jhanjheu District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (11 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5660/2025
Mukesh Kumar S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward
No. 3, Maya Near Jhulelal Mandir, Surat, District Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5661/2025
Shaitan Bheel S/o Kalu Bheel, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Shobhaji Ka Kheda, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5662/2025
Hem Singh S/o Jog Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Purana
Bass Gada Gara District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (12 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jaisalmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5664/2025
Sugna Devi W/o Omaram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Bandhe Ki
Dhaniya Palli Partham, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5665/2025
Radheshyam Mewara S/o Bhanwarlal Mewara, Aged About 51
Years, R/o Mahaveer Bhawan Ke Samne, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5666/2025
Sarita W/o Raja Mohammed, Aged About 50 Years, R/o C-42,
Sadul Gan,j District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (13 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5668/2025
Kamla Devi W/o Rameshwarlal, Aged About 45 Years, R/o
Shantipura, Hathiram Ka Oda, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5669/2025
Kalal Payal D/o Rajendra Prasad, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bapu
Nagar, Ahmedabad.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5670/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (14 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Rajesh Kumar S/o Ramswroop, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Ward
No. 9 Purani Abadi Near Ravi Chowk Sri Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5671/2025
Jaswant Singh S/o Malam Singh, Aged About 34 Years,
Jagdamba Colony, Mata Ka Than, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5672/2025
Kamal Mewara S/o Mangilal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Vishnoeyo Ka Bas, Madera Colony, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (15 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5673/2025
Poonam Singh S/o Dal Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Pugal Dere
Ke Pass Purani Ginani District Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5674/2025
Padma Ram S/o Nenna Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
Betwasiya District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5675/2025
Prashant Parashar S/o V D Parashar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o
Bhabhanagar District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (16 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Sirohi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5676/2025
Vikram Singh S/o Samundra Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Jaleli
Faujdaran, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5677/2025
Mahaveer Prasad S/o Jagdish Suwalka, Aged About 43 Years, R/o
Balaji Choraya Shakar Garh, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5748/2025
Diksha Chawla D/o Kunjbihari Chawla, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Gali No. 04, Kalal Colony, Nagori Gate Ke Andar, Jodhpur District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (17 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5799/2025
Chanchal Tak W/o Shiv Kumar Tak, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Near Bob Bank, Raja Ji Ka Kareda, Tehsil Kareda, Distt. Bhilwara
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Parichwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Bhilwara
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5801/2025
Rajendra Singh Mewara S/o Inder Singh, Aged About 57 Years,
R/o Sarswati Nagar Basni, District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5802/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (18 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Poonam Rathore D/o Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/
o Old Karni Mata Mandir Ke Pass Tilak Nagar Ward No. 40
Bikaner
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5808/2025
Harvinder Singh S/o Hardayal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Dhalewala 2 Ll, Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5810/2025
Davrika Bai D/o Durgalal, Aged About 30 Years, Ward 19, C.a.d.
Colony Keshoraipatan, Bundi, Rajasthan-323601 Rajasthan
Aadhar No. 6399 63844 4501.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (19 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan,
Udaipur.
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5811/2025
Prashant Parashar S/o V.d. Parashar, Aged About 51 Years, R/o
Pg 40 Rps Colony, Vtc, Rawatbhata, Po Bhabhanagar, Sub
District Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan Aadhar No.
2340 9794 3970
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan,
Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Sirohi.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5812/2025
Arvind Kumar S/o Ram Sagar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward
No 41 Bijli Colony Ke Pass Hanumangarh Junction District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan 335512 Aadhar No. 8647 6792 8975
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan,
Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Hanumangarh.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (20 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5831/2025
Sumitra Devi W/o Uday Pal, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Ward 36,
J.p Colony, Hanumangarh Town, Hanumangarh Rajasthan
335512 Aadhar No. 5200 0395 9568.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. Joint Secretary, Finance (Excise) Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur
4. The Excise Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan,
Udaipur
5. District Excise Officer, Excise Department, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5870/2025
Lal Chand S/o Rameshwar, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of
Chamaro Ka Bas, Motipura, Dobhi, Tehsil Bhadra, District
Hanumangarh. (Liquor Shop Code No. 3101026, Village Dobhi,
Tehsil Bhadra, District - Hanumangarh).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. The District Excise Officer, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5875/2025
Mahipal S/o Kanwra Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Kudo Ka
Bas, Jajiwala Gehlota District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (21 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Government Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala,
Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5887/2025
Dolat Ram S/o Hari Singh Hudda, Aged About 48 Years, Ward
No. 8 Gogamedi District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5888/2025
Vishal Bishnoi S/o Kailash Bishnoi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
House No. 108, Agarsen Nagar Ke Pas, Laxmi Nagar, District
Sriganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5926/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (22 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Babu Lal Vishnoi S/o Prabhu Ram Vishnoi, Aged About 45 Years,
Dhorimanna, District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Barmer
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5929/2025
Bhajan Lal S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 37 Years, Khileriyo Ki
Dhani, Cheetradi, District Barmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Secretary Finance, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Barmer
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5943/2025
Birbal Ram S/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kakdo Ki
Dhani Chenpura, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Barmer.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5946/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (23 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Purana Ram S/o Lichman Ram, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Meghwalo Ka Mohalla, Chindaliya, District Nagaur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gunaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Nagour.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6032/2025
Pappu Singh Rajvi S/o Hanuman Singh, Aged About 51 Years, R/
o Khasra No. 84 Shri Ram Nagar Bhadvasiya District Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6241/2025
Vaishno Devi Madira Sang, R/o Patel Circle Kishan Pole Hiran
Magari District Udaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan
3. District Excise Officer, Udaipur
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6981/2025
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (24 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
Dholu Singh S/o Shri Sher Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 12, 1 C.h.d. Kakadwala, Bikaner. (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.).
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner, (Raj.).
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7398/2025
Om Singh S/o Raghu Nath Singh, Aged About 49 Years, Resident
Of Ward No. 12, 1.c.h.d. Kakadwala, Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.).
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner, (Raj.)
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7268/2025
Suman Kanwar W/o Mukan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o
Khuri District Nagour.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Finance,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. District Excise Officer, Nagour.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (25 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7399/2025
Mangan Kanwar W/o Sher Singh, Aged About 64 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 12, Kankarwala, Lunkaransar, Dist.
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Chief Secretary,
Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Commissioner, Excise Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniwala, Panchwati, Udaipur (Raj.).
3. District Excise Officer, Bikaner, (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Girish Joshi
Mr. Kshitiz Vyas
Mr. Sachin Dave
Mr. Manoj Chotia
Mr. Rishabh Handa
MR. P.C. Bishnoi
Mr. Manjeet Godara
Mr. Pritam Joshi
Mr. Shrijeet Singh Solanki
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Additional
Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Harshwardhan Singh
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 13.01.2026 & 05.02.2026
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 13.01.2026 & 05.02.2026
3. Whether the full judgment or only the
operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 06.03.2026
Reportable
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The instant batch of Civil Writ Petitions arises out of a
common factual background, involves common questions of law
and fact, and challenges identical action of the Excise Department,
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (26 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]Government of Rajasthan. Since the controversy involved in all the
matters is substantially similar, the same are being decided
together by this common judgment for the purpose of analogous
adjudication.
1.1. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
6017/2025 (Jamana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is being
treated as the lead case, and the facts are being taken therefrom.
1.2. It is further clarified that though arguments in the batch were
heard together, the matters were reserved on different dates.
While most of the writ petitions were reserved on a common date,
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7399/2025 was reserved for judgment
separately on 05.02.2026. However, as the issues involved are
common, all the matters are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying
for the following reliefs:
“In view of above it is humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court
may by appropriate writ order or direction:
a) Quash and set-aside clause 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the
Excise and Temperance Policy 2025-2029 (Annx-1) as being
contrary to the Excise Policy as well as the Rajasthan Excise
Act, Rajasthan Excise Rules as well as the Constitution of
India;
b) Direct the respondents to renew the license of the
petitioner’s shop and not to create any hindrance in the
operation of the licensed vend of the petitioner. If need be the
notice dated 25.02.2025 (Annx-4) qua petitioners shop may
kindly be quashed and set aside;
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (27 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
c) Any other relief, order or direction that this Hon’ble Court
deems fit in the interest of equity, justice and good
conscience.”
3. The present writ petition arises out of the Rajasthan Excise &
Temperance Policy, 2025-2029 issued by the Finance (Excise)
Department, Government of Rajasthan vide notification dated
29.01.2025, whereby the State Government introduced a revised
framework for settlement of retail liquor shops for the financial
years 2025-2029.
3.1. Under the said policy, while retaining the total number of
retail liquor shops in the State at 7665, a system of district-wise
“clusters” was introduced for the first time. As per Clause 2.2.1 of
the policy, shops were to be grouped into clusters on a contiguous
basis, comprising minimum one and maximum five shops.
3.2. The policy further provided an option of renewal to existing
licensees for the financial year 2025-26, subject to fulfillment of
prescribed eligibility conditions, including enhancement of the
Annual Guarantee Amount by 10% over the previous year.
3.3. The controversy in the present petition centers around
Clauses 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the policy. As per Clause 2.2.6,
renewal of licenses in a district was made conditional upon receipt
of renewal applications from at least 70% of the eligible licensees
in the district, and further subject to all shops within a particular
cluster applying for renewal. Clause 2.2.7 stipulates that if
renewal applications are received from less than 70% of eligible
licensees in a district, then all shops in that district are liable to be
settled through cluster-wise e-auction/e-tender. Clause 2.2.8
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (28 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
provides that where one or more shops within a cluster are not
renewed, opportunity shall be given to existing licensees within
the cluster to take such unrenewed shops; failing which the entire
cluster shall be put to auction.
3.4. The petitioner, who was an existing licensee of a Country
Liquor and IMFL/Beer Composite Retail Off Vend in District Barmer,
submitted an application for renewal within the prescribed time
along with the requisite renewal fee.
3.5. It is the case of the petitioner that in the cluster in which her
shop was included, one shop remained unrenewed. In view
thereof, and after issuance of notice dated 25.02.2025, the
petitioner’s renewal application came to be cancelled, and the
concerned cluster was proposed to be settled through auction
process.
3.6. Aggrieved by the operation of the impugned clauses and
consequential cancellation/non-consideration of her renewal
application, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition
challenging the constitutional validity of Clauses 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and
2.2.8 of the Excise & Temperance Policy 2025-2029, and seeking
renewal of her licence.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, at the outset,
submitted that the present writ petitions are maintainable under
Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India notwithstanding
the fact that the dispute arises out of liquor trade.
4.1. It was contended that although there exists no fundamental
right to carry on trade in liquor, it is now well settled that State
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (29 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
action in matters relating to grant, renewal or regulation of excise
licences remains subject to constitutional scrutiny on the
touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The absence
of a fundamental right to trade in liquor does not exclude judicial
review where arbitrariness, discrimination or violation of declared
policy is alleged.
4.1.1. Learned counsel submitted that the State, while exercising
its exclusive privilege in respect of intoxicants, is nevertheless
bound to act strictly in accordance with the governing statute, the
rules framed thereunder and its own declared policy, and any
deviation therefrom is amenable to judicial review.
4.1.2. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance was placed
upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary
to Government, Tamil Nadu & Anr. vs. K. Vinayagamurthy,
(AIR 2002 SC 2968); State of Kerala & Ors. vs. Unni & Anr.,
(AIR 2007 SC 819); and Kerala Samsthana Chethu
Thozhilali Union vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (AIR 2006 SC
3480), wherein it has been held that though liquor trade is a
regulated privilege, the State is duty-bound to act fairly, non-
arbitrarily and in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution.
4.1.3. It was thus argued that the challenge raised by the
petitioners is not to any vested right in liquor trade, but to the
alleged arbitrary exercise of policy power and discriminatory
application of the Excise Policy, which squarely falls within the
scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (30 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that although
the State enjoys exclusive privilege and regulatory control over
liquor trade, such monopoly does not confer uncanalised or
absolute power. The exercise of such privilege, it was argued,
remains circumscribed by constitutional limitations, particularly
the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was
contended that State monopoly in excise matters does not eclipse
the requirement of fairness, transparency and non-arbitrariness in
decision-making. Even in a restricted trade such as liquor,
executive action must satisfy the test of reasonableness and
cannot be capricious, opaque or discriminatory.
4.2.1. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of
Karnataka [(1995) 1 SCC 574], to submit that while the State
has exclusive privilege in respect of intoxicating liquors, the
method adopted for grant or regulation of licences must not be
arbitrary or discriminatory. It was emphasized that even where the
State acts in its domain of privilege, it cannot transgress
constitutional guarantees.
4.2.2. It was therefore argued that the impugned clauses, though
forming part of an excise policy, are amenable to constitutional
scrutiny and must withstand the test of equality and fairness
under Article 14.
4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned Clauses
2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the Excise & Temperance Policy, 2025-
2029 are ex facie arbitrary inasmuch as they make the renewal
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (31 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
rights of an individual licensee dependent upon the conduct and
choices of other licensees within the cluster and even upon the
overall renewal percentage at the district level.
4.3.1. It was contended that under Clause 2.2.6, even where a
licensee fulfills all eligibility conditions and submits the renewal
application along with the prescribed fee, renewal can be denied if
all licensees within the cluster do not apply or if the district-wide
renewal percentage does not reach the prescribed 70% threshold.
According to learned counsel, such a stipulation introduces an
artificial and unreasonable classification amongst similarly situated
licensees.
4.3.2. Learned counsel argued that Clause 2.2.7, which mandates
that if renewal applications in a district fall below 70% of eligible
licensees, all shops in that district shall be settled through e-
auction, is manifestly arbitrary. The fate of a compliant licensee, it
was submitted, is made contingent upon factors beyond his
control, thereby violating the doctrine of intelligible differentia and
rational nexus under Article 14.
4.3.3. With respect to Clause 2.2.8, it was urged that an existing
licensee is effectively compelled to opt for renewal of other
unrenewed shops within the cluster in order to protect his own
renewal. Such a condition, according to learned counsel, amounts
to economic coercion and compels participation in additional
commercial obligations unrelated to the licensee’s original shop.
4.3.4. Learned counsel further submitted that the 70% renewal
criterion has not been supported by any disclosed empirical study
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (32 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
or rational basis. The application of a district-level threshold, it
was argued, results in unequal treatment between districts
depending upon renewal participation, thereby creating variability
in rights of renewal based on external factors.
4.4. It was also contended that the respondents themselves have
taken a stand that clustering of unrenewed shops for auction is
permissible only where the 70% threshold is not achieved.
However, in the present case, even after more than 70% shops
stood renewed, clusters of already renewed shops were allegedly
clubbed with unlifted or non-viable shops and subjected to
auction, thereby acting contrary to the policy itself. Such action, it
was argued, renders the impugned decision ultra vires the
declared policy framework.
4.5. Learned counsel further argued that the formation of clusters
lacks transparency and uniform criteria. It was submitted that the
policy provides that clusters may consist of one to five contiguous
shops; however, no objective parameters have been disclosed for
determining contiguity, revenue potential or grouping. The alleged
non-publication of the finalized cluster list prior to issuance of
auction notice dated 25.02.2025 was cited as indicative of opacity
and post-decisional manipulation.
4.5.1. It was argued that similarly situated shops were treated
differently in different districts, and the inclusion of an unlifted
shop in the petitioner’s cluster became the sole basis for rejection
of renewal, whereas in other districts single shops were
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (33 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
independently auctioned. Such selective treatment, according to
learned counsel, demonstrates arbitrariness.
4.6. Learned counsel also contended that the respondents’
justification that vendors deliberately avoid lifting high-potential
shops is speculative and unsupported by material. It was
submitted that several shops remain unlifted due to geographical
inaccessibility, low commercial viability or structural
disadvantages, and the State cannot presume mala fides on the
part of licensees.
4.6.1. In this context, reliance was placed upon Sections 101 and
102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to submit that the burden to
justify such assumptions lies upon the State, particularly where
policy restrictions are sought to be defended on factual grounds.
4.7. It was further argued that the cluster mechanism, as
implemented, operates as a tool of economic compulsion by
clubbing profitable shops with non-viable shops and threatening
auction of the entire cluster if any shop remains unrenewed.
According to learned counsel, such a mechanism amounts to
unjust enrichment under the guise of revenue maximization.
4.8. Learned counsel submitted that revenue enhancement cannot
be achieved by coercive or discriminatory means, and the State
cannot indirectly compel cross-subsidization of non-viable shops
by leveraging renewal rights of compliant licensees.
4.9. It was also contended that no issue of prospective or
retrospective application arises in the present case. Even if
clusters have been provisionally allotted through auction, each
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (34 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
shop retains its independent identity and guarantee amount. Any
third party who participated in auction did so subject to the
outcome of the present writ petitions, and therefore no vested
right or equity arises in favour of such allottee.
4.10. On the aforesaid premises, learned counsel prayed that
Clauses 2.2.6, 2.2.7 and 2.2.8 of the Excise & Temperance Policy,
2025-2029 be declared unconstitutional and the consequential
cancellation of the petitioners’ renewal applications and auction
proceedings be quashed.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the
respondents opposed the writ petitions and submitted that the
challenge laid by the petitioners is wholly misconceived, both on
facts and in law.
5.1. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners have an
efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 9A of the
Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 before the Excise Commissioner,
Rajasthan, Udaipur against the order of cancellation/non-renewal.
The extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 ought not to
be invoked in the presence of such statutory remedy.
5.2. Learned counsel further submitted that liquor trade is not a
fundamental right and is merely a privilege regulated by the State
in exercise of its powers under Entry 8 and Entry 51 of List II of
the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India. In view of
Section 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, no licensee has any
vested right to renewal of licence nor any claim for compensation
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (35 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
upon non-renewal. Thus, the petitioners cannot assert renewal as
a matter of right.
5.3. It was submitted that the Excise & Temperance Policy, 2025-
2029 has been framed after due consideration of revenue
interests, administrative efficiency, transparency and long-term
stability in excise administration. The cluster system was
introduced to ensure rationalization of settlement, prevention of
revenue leakage and avoidance of fallow or unregulated areas.
5.4. Learned counsel submitted that the 70% renewal threshold is
a policy decision taken after study and deliberation, intended to
ensure substantial participation of existing licensees before
granting the benefit of renewal. The said condition operates
uniformly across the State and applies equally to all districts and
all licensees. There is neither discrimination nor arbitrariness in
prescribing such a uniform benchmark.
5.5. It was further submitted that after implementation of the
policy, out of 7665 liquor shops in the State, approximately 6420
licensees opted for renewal under the cluster mechanism, thereby
demonstrating overwhelming acceptance of the policy framework.
The fact that a large majority of licensees complied with and
benefited from the policy, it was argued, negates the allegation of
arbitrariness.
5.6. Learned counsel contended that Clause 2.2.8 merely provides
that if a shop within a cluster remains unrenewed, existing
licensees of that cluster are given an opportunity through limited
bidding to settle such shop. Only if the cluster remains unsettled
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (36 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
thereafter is it put to open e-auction. This mechanism, it was
argued, ensures full settlement of all shops within a cluster,
thereby protecting revenue and preventing illegal liquor trade in
unserved areas.
5.7. It was further submitted that the petitioners themselves,
while submitting their renewal applications, expressly accepted
the terms and conditions of the Excise Policy, including the
condition that renewal may be cancelled if 70% threshold is not
met or if cluster conditions are not satisfied. The renewal
application form signed by the petitioners contains an undertaking
to this effect. Having participated in the process with full
knowledge of the policy, the petitioners are estopped from
challenging the same after failing to secure renewal.
5.8. Learned counsel denied the allegation of non-transparency in
cluster formation and submitted that individual notices were
issued to concerned licensees and opportunity of limited tender
was provided before cancellation of renewal applications. The plea
regarding non-publication of cluster lists, it was argued, is
factually incorrect.
5.9. It was contended that the policy does not compel any licensee
to adopt additional commercial obligations. Renewal is voluntary
and subject to prescribed eligibility conditions. The State cannot
permit selective renewal of profitable shops while leaving non-
viable shops unsettled, as that would lead to revenue loss and
proliferation of illegal liquor trade in unregulated areas.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (37 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
5.10. Learned counsel emphasized that formulation of excise
policy falls squarely within the executive domain. Judicial review in
such matters is limited to examining manifest arbitrariness or
constitutional violation. Courts do not sit in appeal over policy
wisdom or substitute their own views regarding revenue
mechanisms.
5.11. It was thus prayed that the impugned clauses are neither
arbitrary nor discriminatory; they are rational, uniformly
applicable and framed in furtherance of legitimate State
objectives. The writ petitions, therefore, deserve to be dismissed.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The record of
the case as well as the judgments cited at the Bar have been
carefully perused.
6.1. This Court observes that the subject of intoxicating liquors
falls within Entry 8 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the
Constitution of India, which empowers the State Legislature to
legislate on “intoxicating liquors, that is to say, the production,
manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of
intoxicating liquors.” Further, Entry 51 of List II confers power
upon the State to levy duties of excise on alcoholic liquors for
human consumption.
6.2. This Court further observes that Article 47 of the Constitution
of India, forming part of the Directive Principles of State Policy,
casts a duty upon the State to endeavour to bring about
prohibition of intoxicating drinks except for medicinal purposes.
Thus, the constitutional scheme unmistakably places regulation of
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (38 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
liquor trade within the domain of State control and policy
determination.
6.3. It is therefore clear that the field of excise, particularly with
respect to liquor, is an area where the State enjoys regulatory
privilege and wide discretion in determining the manner of grant,
renewal and settlement of licences.
6.3.1. This Court finds that it is well settled that there exists no
fundamental right to trade in liquor. The business of liquor is not
protected under Article 19(1)(g) as an unrestricted commercial
activity, but is treated as a privilege subject to complete control of
the State.
6.3.2. At this juncture, reference may be made to the
authoritative pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Khoday Distilleries Ltd. (Supra) held as follows:
“62. We, therefore, hold that a citizen has no
fundamental right to trade or business in liquor as
beverage. The State can prohibit completely the trade or
business in potable liquor since liquor as beverage is res
extra commercium. The State may also create a
monopoly in itself for trade or business in such liquor.
The State can further place restrictions and limitations on
such trade or business which may be in nature different
from those on trade or business in articles res
commercium. The view taken by this Court in K.K. Narula
case17 as well as in the second Synthetics and Chemicals
Ltd. case30 is not contrary to the aforesaid view which
has been consistently taken by this Court so far.
63. One of the incidental contentions, viz., whether the
State can create monopoly in trade or business in potable(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (39 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]liquor is already answered above. This is apart from the
fact that Article 19(6) provides for such monopoly in
favour of the State even in trades and businesses which
are legitimate. It is not, therefore, necessary to dilate
upon this aspect any further.”
The Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that the State has
exclusive privilege in respect of intoxicating liquors and no citizen
has an inherent right to carry on such trade.
6.3.3. However, this Court also notes that though no fundamental
right exists in liquor trade, State action in this domain is not
immune from judicial review. The exercise of privilege must
conform to constitutional standards of non-arbitrariness under
Article 14. Thus, the limited question before this Court is whether
the impugned clauses suffer from manifest arbitrariness or
unconstitutional discrimination.
6.3.4. This Court observes that formulation of excise policy is a
matter of executive wisdom involving fiscal considerations,
administrative convenience, revenue optimization and regulatory
strategy. Courts ordinarily refrain from interfering with policy
decisions unless they are patently arbitrary, discriminatory or ultra
vires statutory provisions.
6.3.5. This Court further observes that judicial review does not
extend to examining the economic merits of policy choices or
substituting judicial views for executive wisdom. The Court’s role
is confined to testing whether the policy transgresses
constitutional boundaries.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (40 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
6.4. This Court finds that Clause 2.2.6 and Clause 2.2.7 prescribe
a condition that renewal of licences would be subject to at least
70% of eligible licensees in a district opting for renewal and
fulfillment of cluster conditions.
6.4.1. The prescription of a threshold percentage is a policy
mechanism intended to ensure substantial participation and
stability in settlement before granting renewal benefits. Such a
benchmark operates uniformly across all districts and applies
equally to all licensees.
6.4.2. The mere fact that renewal rights of an individual licensee
are linked to cluster-level or district-level participation does not
ipso facto render the provision arbitrary. In fiscal and regulatory
matters, the State is entitled to adopt collective mechanisms to
secure revenue and administrative uniformity.
6.4.3. This Court finds no material on record to demonstrate that
the 70% criterion is manifestly arbitrary or without rational nexus
to the object of ensuring revenue stability and preventing
fragmented settlement.
6.5. The introduction of cluster formation is a structural feature of
the new Excise Policy aimed at rationalizing settlement of retail
shops and avoiding fallow areas.
6.5.1. The policy expressly provides for grouping of contiguous
shops between one and five units. The determination of such
grouping is an administrative exercise falling within the
competence of the Excise Commissioner.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (41 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
6.5.2. The argument that cluster formation promotes
monopolization or compels economic coercion cannot be accepted
in absence of concrete material demonstrating discriminatory
application. The mechanism applies uniformly and provides
opportunity of renewal, limited tender and thereafter open e-
auction.
6.5.3. This Court further finds that renewal is not an absolute right
but subject to compliance with declared policy conditions. Section
37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 clearly stipulates that no
person has a claim to renewal of licence.
6.6. The petitioners have contended that even after achieving
70% renewal, clusters of renewed shops were allegedly clubbed
with unrenewed shops and put to auction. However, from the
material placed on record, it appears that the renewal applications
were processed in accordance with Clause 2.2.8, and limited
opportunity was granted for settlement of remaining shops within
the cluster before proceeding to auction.
6.6.1. In absence of demonstrable mala fides or deviation from
declared procedure, this Court does not find sufficient ground to
hold the impugned action ultra vires the policy.
6.6.2. This Court notes that the petitioners participated in the
renewal process after accepting the terms and conditions of the
Excise Policy, including the stipulation regarding 70% district
threshold and cluster settlement.
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB] (42 of 42) [CW-6017/2025]
6.6.3. It is well settled that a party who participates in a process
with knowledge of conditions cannot subsequently challenge those
very conditions merely because the outcome is unfavourable.
6.7. Upon overall consideration, this Court finds that:
• The subject of liquor trade falls squarely within State
legislative and executive competence;
• There exists no fundamental right to renewal of liquor
licence;
• The impugned clauses operate uniformly and are part of a
comprehensive excise policy;
• No manifest arbitrariness, hostile discrimination or
constitutional infirmity has been demonstrated.
6.7.1. The petitioners have essentially sought judicial substitution
of policy wisdom, which is impermissible within the limited scope
of judicial review.
7. Consequently, for the reasons recorded hereinabove, this Court
finds no merit in the present batch of writ petitions, and therefore,
the instant writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. All pending
applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 06/03/2026 at 02:54:34 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/03/2026 at 05:21:10 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)