{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPL. APPEAL (WRIT) NO.596/2010 PURKHA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date of Judgment : 25.11.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.M. TOTLA Mr. Pradeep Choudhary, for the appellant. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of W.P.No.02944 of 2010 under Rule 134 of Rajasthan High court Rules against an order dt. 14.05.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the appellant's writ petition filed for seeking certain directions. 3. So the question that arises for consideration in this intra court appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition of the appellant ? 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant { 2 } at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to concur with the view expressed by Single Judge. 5. The appellant was holder of liquor license for the year 2009–2010. It was cancelled by Excise Commissioner vide his order dt. 30.4.2010 on the ground that huge illicit stock of liquor was found in the appellant’s shop. It is this cancellation, which gave rise to filing of the writ petition. The learned single judge by impugned order, dismissed the writ petition and upheld the cancellation. It is against this order; the writ petitioner has felt aggrieved and filed this intra court appeal. 6. This is what the learned single judge held while dismissing the writ petition. “Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's contention is that his license for the liquor has been cancelled vide order dated 30.4.2010 in spite of the fact that the inquiry report Annex.P/19 was given by the department's own person in favour of the petitioner. It is submitted that on the date of alleged recovery of illicit liquor from the show of the petitioner, there was marriage of son of the petitioner and the person Mukesh Kumar who was found on the shop was not the servant of the petitioner and no criminal case has been registered against the petitioner and the case has been registered against the said person Mukesh Kumar with whom the { 3 } petitioner is not having any business relation and, therefore, the cancellation of the license of the petitioner is absolutely illegal. It is submitted that if the petitioner's license is cancelled, the petitioner would not be permitted to renew his license for the year 2010-11. The aforesaid pleas were considered by the competent authorities firstly by the Excise Commissioner and then it was considered by the Tax Board wherein all the pleas of the petitioner have been considered and it has been held that it is not necessary that person in whose possession the illicit liquor is recovered from the premises should be the person shown by the license holder as servant. Anybody can be the person on the shop on behalf of the license holder. I do not find any illegality in the said finding because it is common practice of the licensee if he will have some work at his house, he may have temporary arrangement and he will not close the shop and particularly here in this case, the relevant fact is of recovery of illicit liquor from the premises of the petitioner. In view of the above, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.” 7. We find no good ground to upset the order of the { 4 } learned single judge as in our view; the grounds on which it is based are just and legal. 8. The question as to whether any stock of illegal liquor was found in appellant’ shop and what was its quantity and whether a particular person working in the shop at the relevant time was appellant’s servant or not is essentially a question of fact and the same could not be gone into in the writ petition much less in intra court appeal arising out of writ like an appellate court. To the extent, permissible, the writ court did go into this question and recorded a finding for upholding the cancellation. 9. In our opinion, such finding cannot be set-aside in this appeal as it is based on cogent and relevant material. There is nothing to show that the ground, which was made basis, was either bogus or falsely created for cancellation of license. Similarly, it cannot be denied that such ground could be made basis for cancellation. Indeed, this ground was one of the relevant grounds and thus was rightly made basis for cancellation of a license in question. 10. It is a settled principle of law dealing with the liquor that no citizen can deal in the trade of liquor as of right nor can he claim infringement of his fundamental right while dealing in such trade. The larger latitude is, therefore, granted to the State while dealing with the trade of liquor. 11. In our opinion, the case in hand cannot be said to be a case of any arbitrary action on the part of the State. The term in the license did empower the commissioner of excise { 5 } to cancel the license if licensee was found to have committed any breach of its term. Keeping illicit liquor in the shop was a serious breach and hence once it was proved with the aid of some evidence then it could be made basis for cancellation of license. In this case, it was proved after affording an opportunity to licensee and hence the learned Single Judge was justified in upholding action of Excise Commissioner. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on one unreported decision of this court dt. 6.7.2006 passed in Special Appeal No. 352 of 2005 contended that if the action impugned in the writ petition is examined in the light of law laid down in this decision then it has to be declared bad in law. We find no merit in this submission. We have perused the decision and find that it turns on its own fact. The facts of this case are very simple. In this case, the cancellation was done on the strength of illicit stock of liquor found in the appellant’s shop. The cancellation could be made on such ground. In the case cited, the cancellation was done on some other ground and hence the said ground was examined in the context of the plea taken by the licensee of that case and accordingly orders were passed. In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the appellant cannot take any benefit of such decision. 13. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed in limini. ( C.M. TOTLA),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/