Gulmohar W/O Mukesh V. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
Gulmohar W/O Mukesh V. State Of Rajasthan & Ors.
Facts
The petitioner, Gulmohar W/o Mukesh, and similarly placed persons were granted retail composite liquor shop licenses (CL/FL) for the financial year 2023-24 in various districts of Rajasthan. Subsequently, the Excise Department, without issuing proper show-cause notices or providing a fair hearing, took adverse actions against several license holders, including cancellation or non-renewal of licenses.
The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the arbitrary and non-transparent conduct of the Excise authorities.
Issues:
- Whether the State’s action in cancelling or not renewing the excise license without due process violated Article 14 and principles of natural justice.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to relief when similarly situated licensees were granted favourable treatment.
Arguments by Petitioners:
- The actions were non-speaking, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
- No opportunity of hearing was given before cancellation.
- The impugned orders lacked reasoning, violating administrative law norms.
- Relied on Article 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and binding precedents protecting procedural fairness.
State’s Defence:
- Argued that the licensing was a privilege and not a fundamental right.
- Claimed due process was followed.
- Justified cancellations based on alleged irregularities or violations of terms.
Hon’ble High Court held that:
- The absence of notice and hearing rendered the actions of the Excise Department unlawful.
- The principles of natural justice must be observed even in licensing matters governed by statutory discretion.
- The State cannot act discriminatorily among similarly situated licensees.
- The writ petitions were allowed.
- Adverse orders against petitioners were quashed.
- The respondents were directed to reconsider the matter in light of due process and provide a fair hearing.
The court further observed that disparate treatment of licensees without intelligible differentia violates Article 14.
