ARUN MADAN, J. - (1.) THIS review petition arises out of the common judgment and order dated 13.12.1994 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 4274/1988 (Bhola Ram v. State and Ors.) and five other connected matters i.e. SBCWP Nos. 112/85, 1439/86,456/86, 1433/85 and 1195/85.
(2.) SINCE the questions raised in the present review petition are pure legal questions of law, I need not advert to the facts of the writ petition separately. The grounds of review of the order dated 13.12.1994 which have been urged by Mr. N.S. Rathore, learned Counsel representing the petitioner are : (i) It was not the case of the petitioner that the demand has been raised by the respondent though the adequate supply of liquor was not made by respondents themselves while, the case of the petitioner before the learned Single Judge was that though the petitioner was not even a licensee, no licence whatsoever was issued in his favour and, therefore, he was nowhere concerned with the sale and purchase of liquor but despite, the demand was raised against him and this Court without going into the merits of the case disposed of the writ petition in a summary manner alongwith other cases. (ii) As per Section 21 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, no liquor can be bottled for sale and excisable otherwise than in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence granted in that behalf. Since, the petitioner had only moved an application before the respondents that he was interested in entering into the partnership with one Noora and that he should also have been made co -licensee, the District Excise Officer simply recorded the statement of both the parties and after that nothing was heard from the respondents authorities as to whether they were inclined to enter his name as co -licensee or not.
(3.) IT has been contended in this regard that since the name of the petitioner was not included in the licence as a co -licensee, he neither gave any order for the supply of liquor nor any liquor was supplied by the department to the petitioner. On this basis, it has been sought that since the petitioner did not have any connection whatsoever for the retail sale of country liquor at Badagaon for the year 1967 -68, as such recovery proceedings against the petitioner vide order dated 1.9.1988 (Annexure -6) for the period i.e. 1967 -68 for a sum of Rs. 14,640.30 is liable to be quashed and set -aside since the petitioner was not a licensee but one Noora (Nuruddin), he is not liable for the acts of omissions and commissions of the co -licensee i.e. Nuruddin.;