DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR JUDGMENT 1.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.359/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Manju Shankhala 2.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.422/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Lakhpat Purohit 3.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.423/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Maina Malawat 4.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.424/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Rohit Bahri 5.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.425/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Nikhil Choudhary 6.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.426/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Kuldeep 7.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.427/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Kumar 8.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.428/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Paras Mal Jain 9.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.438/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Smt. Prabat Kanwar 10.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.439/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jalam Singh DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 2 11.D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.440/2008- State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Mangi Lal AGAINT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 15.4.2008 DATE OF ORDER :: 13.4.2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. HON'BLE DR. VINEET KOTHARI, J. Mr. MR Singhvi, for the appellants. Mr.JP Joshi, for the respondent-caveator <><><> BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per State, a policy decision was taken by order dated 23.2.2008 in the matter of renewal of license for sale of country liquor that any licensee against whom three or more cases have been registered under the Excise Act shall not be eligible for renewal of license. The said policy was challenged by preferring writ petitions before the Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court as well as before the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court. Before the writ DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 3 petitions preferred before the Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court could have been decided, the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court allowed the writ petitions preferred by the petitioners in SBCWP NO.1960/2008 and connected 20 writ petitions by judgment dated 31.3.2008 and declared the alleged policy of the State Government dated 23.2.2008 as illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The learned Single Judge at Principal Seat of Jodhpur followed the same judgment and specifically observed as under: - “....though the said policy is not under challenge but impugned orders have been passed in pursuance of the said policy, whereby, applications for renewal were rejected on the ground that in the excise policy dated 22.2.2008 the State Government has provided not to renew any license of existing licensee of liquor shop against whom three cases under the Excise Act have been registered. Meaning thereby, the impugned orders in the instant case, were passed on the basis of excise policy of the State Government, which is held to be without jurisdiction and arbitrary by the learned Single Judge of Jaipur Bench, therefore, now it is not proper to adjudicate the validity of impugned orders upon the arguments DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 4 advanced by the parties in these writ petitions because the basis of the impugned orders which is excise policy has been declared without jurisdiction and arbitrary....”, The appeals were preferred to challenge the judgments passed by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.1960/2008 and connected matters. The appeals were also preferred to challenge the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petitions preferred at Principal Seat of Rajasthan High Court dated 15.4.2008. The DBSAW (Writ) No.359/2008 was listed before the Division Bench of this Court on 24.4.2008 and on that date, it has been submitted that special appeals are pending at Jaipur Bench against the order, which is the basis of the impugned order. In view of the above, the matter was adjourned to 5.5.2008 and then on 5.5.2008, 9.5.2008, 12.5.2008, 16.5.2008, 10.7.2008, 8.8.2008, 12.8.2008, 27.8.2008, 24.9.2008 and lastly it has listed before the Division Bench of this Court on 13.1.2009. After 13.1.2009, the matter has been listed in court on many occasions but DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 5 was not taken up and ultimately, today it has been taken up for consideration. From the order-sheets, referred above, it is clear that these appeals have been kept pending to know the fate of the special appeals which have been preferred to challenge the basic judgment delivered by the Jaipur Bench of the High Court wherein the policy decision dated 23.2.2008 has been declared violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and has been quashed. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked to explain how the present appeals can survive when the policy under challenge itself had limited period as the policy was for financial year 2008-09 which was come to an end by 31.3.2009 and the relief granted to the writ petitioners stands exhausted by the expiry of the renewed license given after the decision rendered by the Single Bench of this Court and term of that renewed license has also expired. Meaning thereby, what relief now the appellants can get even when they succeeded in these appeals. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submitted that the appellants have raised objection about the jurisdiction of DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 6 the High Court in entertaining the writ petition to challenge the policy decision of the State Government and if the impugned judgment is not set aside, the State will not be in position to frame the same policy which according to the Sate is legal and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that in case the appeals are dismissed as having become infrcutous then the impugned order will survive and the State will not be in position to lay down the same policy though that policy in the opinion of the State is legal and framed in larger public interest because that will be contrary to the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge in these writ petitions against which appeals have been preferred. We considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and perused the facts of the case. We have also quoted the passage from the impugned judgment delivered by the Single Bench of this Court dated 15.4.2008 to make it clear that the learned Single Judge for the obvious reason that the policy which has been challenged in present writ petitions has already been DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 7 declared illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India by the Jaipur Bench in SBCWP No.1960/2008 and connected writ petitions vide judgment dated 31.3.2008, therefore, the policy remained not under challenge and from the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge it is clear that nothing has been said on merit of the arguments advanced by both the parties, which was advanced in detail as the writ petitions were heard before the judgment of the Jaipur Bench came declaring the policy illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In that situation, the challenge to the decision of the learned Single Judge in these writ petitions will be only academic because of the reason that the learned Single Judge has not declared the policy illegal or ultra vires of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but followed the decision delivered by the coordinate bench in SBCWP No.1960/2008 and other connected writ petitions by specifically observing that policy of the State is not under challenge in these writ petitions inspite of the fact that there were challenge to the policy in the writ petition but it DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 8 appears that plea did not survive after the declaration of the policy to be illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. So far as apprehension of learned counsel for the appellant is that if these appeals will be dismissed at this stage, then that will have adverse effect on the appeals preferred by the State before the Jaipur Bench, which have been preferred to challenge the main judgment of Single Bench delivered at Jaipur. It is also submitted that after dismissal of these appeal, the State may not be able to frame the same policy. The contention is not correct as said issue can be decided by the Jaipur Bench of High Court inspite of dismissal of these appeals as the appeals here at Principal seat have been kept only to know the decision of the Jaipur Bench. Previous orders passed in these appeals also show that the Principal seat decided not to pass any order on these appeals simply because, in the opinion of Division Benches at Principal seat, said issue required to be decided in main appeal challenging the basic judgment. And if said DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 9 issue if decided in favour of the appellants by the Jaipur Bench of this Court then the appellants will succeed in getting the relief for subsequent years. There is no reason to keep appeals pending here because even if these appeals are dismissed here even then State's right is not affected because of simple reason that declaration of policy to be valid or invalid in one petition or more petitions cannot make any difference. So far as these appeals are concerned, admittedly even if the policy is declared valid and the impugned judgment before this Court at Principal seat is set aside, even then the appellants cannot get actual relief, which has stand exhausted by use of the license by the writ petitioners in the currency and effect of the order passed by the Jaipur Bench as well as by this Court in these writ petitions. The appellants are free to argue their appeals on the ground which they want to raise against the judgment delivered by the Jaipur Bench and that can be examined by the Jaipur Bench in the appeals preferred by the appellant- State uninfluenced by the dismissal of these appeals. When relief of any declaration can be granted in one appeal DBSAW No.359/2008 State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Smt. Manju Shankhala a/w 10 connected matters 10 without affecting anybodies right in any manner then it is not necessary to keep the connected appeals pending and more particularly, when they are listed before different benches and that is because of High Court having Principal Seat and Bench if the appeals at one place are dismissed without affecting the appeals at Jaipur Bench then there is no reason to keep the appeals pending only for the purpose of disposing of the appeals after decision by the Jaipur Bench. In view of the above, all the aforesaid special appeals of the appellants are dismissed as having become infrctuous and academic by lapse of period of impugned Excise Policy on 31st March, 2009. (VINEET KOTHARI),J. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. c.p.goyal/-