Gaurishankar vs State of Rajasthan

P.K. Lohra, J.—By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for besetting the order dt. 21.6.2013 (Annexure/13) passed by the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur. By the order impugned (Annexure/13) the District Excise Officer has canceled the sanctioned location of the petitioner''s shop for running country liquor shop at Ward No. 57 at Magrajji ka tanka, Krishi Mandi Road, Jodhpur and ordered its shut down with immediate effect. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bora has argued that license for the shop in question was granted to the petitioner by the Excise Department after making necessary inquiries for this particular location of the shop and, therefore, according to him, his sanctioned location of the shop cannot be annulled without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard by the District Excise Officer. He further submits that for shifting location of the shop, the petitioner has not been allowed breathing time. Mr. Bora, learned counsel would urge that this action of the respondents is out come of colorable exercise of powers and, therefore, the order impugned is not sustainable.

Per contra, Mr. Saraswat has argued that before issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity in as much as the notice dt. 10.6.2013 was served on him which was further followed by notice dt. 12.6.2013. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has also tendered his explanation thereafter again by the communication dt. 17.6.2013 the petitioner was asked to furnish requisite documents to support his cause.

Learned counsel for the respondents has also argued that there were serious complaints against the petitioner and the residents of the locality have lodged many complaints against the petitioner and there was a huge public out-cry against the location of the shop of the petitioner. Therefore, considering the public grievances as paramount, the decision was taken to cancel the sanctioned location of the disputed shop. Mr. Saraswat has further submitted that against the impugned order, the petitioner has earlier approached the civil Court for seeking redressal of his grievances, but the said suit was dismissed as barred by law. Mr. Saraswat has strenuously urged that trading/vending liquor is not a fundamental right of an individual and, therefore, an aggrieved individual cannot make a complaint about the violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He has further submitted that against the impugned order, efficacious alternative statutory remedy is available to the petitioner under Sec. 9A of the Rajasthan Excise Act/1950 (hereinafter referred as the Act of 1950) and, therefore, the present writ petition is liable to be thrown away solely on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

I have considered the rival submissions. The legal position is not more res integra that vending liquor is not a fundamental right of an individual and no incumbent can claim as a matter of right for trading/vending liquor at a particular location. As regards the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner, true it is that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, but then it is a consistent practice of this Court to relegate an incumbent to alternative remedy, if it is a efficacious in nature. In the instant case, the remedy of appeal and revision envisaged under Sec. 9A of the Act of 1950 is efficacious remedy and, therefore, I am not persuaded to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedy of appeal under Sec. 9A of the Act of 1950, The petitioner may prefer an appeal within seven days from today and it is expected that the Appellate Authority shall consider and decide the same within one month thereafter strictly in accordance with law.