- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a decision was taken for giving license to the petitioner for the remaining period of year 2009-2010 for opening of country liquor shop but in fact, license was not given to him. One Purkha Ram was given license for running country liquor shop for the year 2009-2010 and his license was cancelled, then Purkha Ram preferred writ petition before this Court wherein he was allowed to prefer appeal firstly. Then after decision of the appeal, Purkha Ram approached this Court again then this Court permitted him to avail the remedy of revision under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 According to learned counsel for the petitioner, one another person Mr.Bharat Malhotra was granted remaining period license for the year 2009-2010 and without intervention of the Court, he continued to enjoy the benefit of license. The petitioner's case is similar to that person. Learned counsel for the petitioner when specifically asked to show under which provision he can claim license for the year 2010-2011, he could not show any law on the point. Learned counsel for the petitioner's only contention is that since similar person was given license for the remaining period of 2009-2010 and his license has been continued for 2010-2011 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to license for the year 2010-2011.
(2.) The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of any force in view of the fact that the license can be granted under the provisions of the Act of 1950 and the Rules framed thereunder. The petitioner since failed to establish that he in any manner could have been considered for giving license for the year 2010- 2011, the petitioner cannot get any relief merely on the ground that some other person has been given license for the year 2010-2011 without disclosing his parity with that other person. In view of the above reason, this writ petition, having no merits, is hereby dismissed.;