Appellate bench cannot pre-empt Single Judge seized of writ: Rajasthan HC dismisses excise licensee’s appeal

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has refused to interfere with a Single Judge’s interim orders in a Padampur liquor licensee’s writ case. An appellate bench cannot pre-empt issues that are still being decided below, it held. A division bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Chandra Shekhar Sharma gave the ruling on 7 April 2026. It dismissed an intra-court appeal filed by Shakti, a Sri Ganganagar excise licensee.

Shakti held an excise licence for Shop Code 1306051, covering several wards in Padampur town. In September 2025, she and other licensees say they could not meet their monthly liquor lifting guarantee. The reason, they claim, was repeated server failures at the Excise Department.

On 30 October 2025, the Department imposed a penal condition on such licensees. They were asked to lift 1.5 times the alleged shortfall in later months. Shakti challenged that order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23713/2025. On 6 December 2025, a Single Judge issued notice and restrained the Department from taking coercive action.

When Shakti tried to renew her licence in February 2026, the system blocked her, citing outstanding dues. She alleges the demands kept changing each time she checked. On 17 February 2026, the Department allotted her shop to Purushotam Dass, a different licensee. Shakti then filed a second writ petition, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6202/2026. On 24 March 2026, the Single Judge issued notice and ruled that the fresh allotment would remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

Not satisfied with that interim arrangement, Shakti filed an intra-court appeal before a division bench.

Counsel for Shakti, Mr. Himmat Jaga, told the bench that the September 2025 default was not her fault. The server failure was the Department’s own problem, he said, and the 1.5-times penalty was arbitrary. He argued that the renewal was blocked despite the Single Judge’s protection order. The fluctuating demand figures on the portal, he submitted, showed the Department acting arbitrarily. Allotting the shop to Purushotam Dass while the writ petition was pending, he argued, was illegal.

Additional Advocate General Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, appearing for the State, told the bench that the December 2025 protection order only covered the September 2025 dues. Shakti, he said, had continued to default in later months. She had not cleared her arrears even after a notice on 4 December 2025. Such wilful default made her ineligible for equitable relief.

The State relied on Rule 63 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 read with Clause 2.8 of the Excise Policy 2025–29. These provisions bar a licensee with outstanding arrears from getting a renewal. The denial of renewal, the State argued, was an automatic statutory consequence. The shop was then lawfully allotted to Purushotam Dass, who was represented by Mr. P.K. Rawla.

The bench began by noting that every issue raised in the appeal was already before the Single Judge in the two pending writ petitions. The bench listed what was already before the writ court: the legality of the demand, the effect of the December 2025 protection, the validity of the renewal denial, and the allotment itself.

The judges then turned to the limits of intra-court appellate jurisdiction. An appellate forum must show “a high degree of judicial restraint” when the Single Judge is actively seized of a matter. Interference with a discretionary interim order is permitted only in narrow situations. The order must be shown to be patently illegal, manifestly arbitrary, perverse, or affected by a jurisdictional error. None of those grounds, the bench said, were made out here.

Addressing the risk of pre-judgment, the bench was blunt. It observed: “If this Court were to enter into the merits at this stage, it would virtually denude the learned Single Judge of the opportunity to independently examine and adjudicate the issues raised.” In plain terms, ruling now on the demand or the allotment would leave the Single Judge with nothing left to decide. The writ petition would become a hollow formality.

The bench invoked the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit — an act of the court should not prejudice anyone — and the broader sub judice principle. Both, it said, prevent a superior forum from cutting in on an issue that is actively pending below.

The judges also pointed out that the Single Judge had not actually refused Shakti the relief she sought. Notices had only just been issued, and the stay application was still pending. Until the Single Judge categorically rejects a prayer, the bench held, the appellate forum cannot be invoked to grant it.

The bench added that the Single Judge had already protected Shakti’s interests. The allotment to Purushotam Dass was kept subject to the writ petition’s outcome. If Shakti ultimately wins, her position can be restored.

The division bench dismissed the Civil Special Appeal (Writ) and disposed of all pending applications. It clarified that the Single Judge will decide both writ petitions and the stay application independently, on their merits, without being influenced by anything said in the appellate order. Shakti remains free to press all her grounds — factual and legal — before the Single Judge.

Case details