- (1.) BY the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for besetting the order dated 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.
(2.) ASSAILING the impugned order, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Bora has argued that license for the shop in quesiton 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 dated 10.6.2013 was served on him which was further followed by notice dated 12.6.2013. Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner has also tendered his explanation thereafter again by the communication dated 17.6.2013 the petitioner was asked to furnish requisite documents to support his cause.
(3.) 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 Section 9-A 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.;