CW 2052/09 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.2052/2009 Sant Ram Versus State & Ors. Date of Order ::: 24/02/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Suresh Pareek, for petitioner Mr. GS Bapna, Advocate General, for State Mr. RB Mathur, respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that while applications were invited for allotment of liquor shop under excise policy, 2009-10, no individual should be permitted to submit more than one application as allowing an individual to submit more applications is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution. Respondents circulated its policy (Ann.1) for allotment of foreign liquor and beer shops in the State of Rajasthan, subject to conditions laid down in para 1 about eligibility for an incumbent to participate in process of lottery, which the respondents adopted in its guidelines for financial year 2009-10. Application fee plus earnest money has to be deposited, which varies from municipal area, district head quarter, Divisional head-quarters, and of Jaipur & Jodhpur. In addition to prescribed fees as mentioned in para 3.4 of guidelines (Ann.1) which is non-refundable, he CW 2052/09 //2// has to deposit earnest money being 10% of license fees which was refundable in case of failure in lottery to get allotment. Counsel for petitioner inter-alia submits that an individual can submit application and participate in the lottery but under existing guidelines, if one individual is permitted to submit more than one application, it would bleak the chances of other applicants like petitioner who submits only one application and such practice adopted by respondents under the garb of guidelines is wholly arbitrary and hit by Art.14 of the Constitution. In support, Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetti Vs. International Airport Authority of India (AIR 1979 SC 1628); LIC of India Vs. Consumer Education & Research Centre (1995(5) SCC 482) & Union of India Vs. International Trading Co.(2003(5) SCC 437). Per contra, in reply, respondents have inter-alia averred that no one has fundamental right to trade of liquor; however, there is no bar for submitting more than one application and all such applications are processed through lottery for allotment of liquor shop as per guidelines (Ann.1); however, only one would be finally selected and rest of other applications submitted alongwith fees are not entitled to CW 2052/09 //3// refund of the fees and it is open for all to submit more than one application inasmuch as he can. It has further been averred that this practice is being followed from financial year 2006-07 as is evident from documents (Ann.R.1 & 2). Government Counsel submits that these are policy matters and this Court would not like to interfere unless it is in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or of any statute in limited scope of judicial review under writ jurisdiction of this Court. In support, Government Counsel placed reliance upon decisions of Apex Court in Balco Employees Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India (2002(2) SCC 333) and Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2007(8) SCC 418). I have considered rival contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance, examined material on record. Respondents in its policy for allotment of shops of foreign liquor & beer for financial year 2009-10 considered it proper to adopt method of lottery, being one of methods available to the State so as to consider allotment either through lottery or open auction. Petitioner submitted one application for allotment of liquor shop for Chaksu Municipal area. It is not the case of petitioner that he CW 2052/09 //4// was not aware of the fact while submitting application for allotment of liquor shop for Chaksu municipal area, that an individual can submit more than one application for participating in the lottery under notice (Ann.1). Only grievance raised by petitioner is that permitting applicants to submit more than one application is arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution. In the opinion of this Court, such a contention is bereft of merit for the reason that it is for the State Government to take decision for inviting applications in regard to allotment of liquor shop through lottery under its guideliness; and it being policy matter of State Government is not ordinarily required to be interfered with by this Court in limited scope of judicial review under its writ jurisdiction. It stands settled by recent decision of Apex Court in Ekta Shakti Foundation VS. Govt. of NCT of Delhi (2006 AIR SCW 3601=2006(10)SCC 337) holding that decision must be left to the government alone as long as infringement of fundamental right is not shown; and observed: “10. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to CW 2052/09 //5// sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. (See Ashif Hamid v. State of J. & K. (AIR 1989 SC 1899), Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. v. Union of India (AIR 1990 SC 1277). The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere.” In instant case, every one has an opportunity to submit application in asmuch as he desired; with a specific stipulation that application fee deposited is non-refundable under para 3.4 of tender (Ann.1). It was also open for petitioner to submit more than one application if desired. Being policy decision has certainly to be taken by governmental authorities since several facts are to be kept in mind and is not possible for this Court to consider competing claims and conflicting interests. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that existing policy has been adopted by State earlier CW 2052/09 //6// in the year 2006-07 and being consistently followed, and no objections were ever raised before. Judgments cited by Counsel for petitioner (supra) are of no assistance in the facts of instant case. Consequently, writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. NO order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p6/2052CW09Fb20Excs.doc