Rajasthan HC Division Bench Allows Liquor Shop Owner to Operate at Relocated Site Pending Single Judge's Decision on Stay

A Jodhpur liquor vend licensee won interim relief from a Division Bench after the District Excise Officer's affidavit confirmed the relocation stayed within the same cluster under excise policy.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur, comprising Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal, on 12 June 2026 disposed of a special appeal filed by Devendra Gehlot, proprietor of Liquor Shop No. 7 at Kaylana Chouraha, Jodhpur. The appeal challenged an ad-interim stay granted by a Single Judge on 27 April 2026 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8940/2026, which had frozen the operation of a District Excise Officer's order permitting Gehlot to shift his liquor vend to a new site. The Division Bench, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the underlying writ petition, directed that Gehlot be allowed to operate from the relocated site until the Single Judge finally disposes of the stay application pending before him.

The Dispute Before the Division Bench

Devendra Gehlot, aged 26, is a licensee under the prevailing excise regime in Rajasthan. The competent authority — the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur — had granted him permission to shift his liquor shop from its existing site to another location. That permission was issued after obtaining approval from Headquarter-level authorities and upon satisfaction of the statutory requirements governing such relocations.

Respondent No. 1, Vaibhav Singh Bhati, a resident of Chopasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, challenged the relocation order before the Single Judge by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8940/2026. The Single Judge passed an ad-interim order staying the relocation order. Gehlot then preferred D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 698/2026 before the Division Bench, assailing that ad-interim stay.

The State of Rajasthan, the Commissioner Excise, the Additional Commissioner Excise (Scheme and Planning), and the District Excise Officer, Jodhpur were arrayed as respondents alongside Bhati. Mr. Anand Purohit, Senior Advocate, appeared for Gehlot, assisted by Mr. Mahipal Bishnoi, Mr. Pradyuman Singh Shekhawat, and Mr. Puna Ram Sen. Mr. Gaurav Bishnoi appeared for Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, Additional Advocate General, and Mr. R.S. Choudhary, Mr. Jitendra Singh Bhanwariya, and Mr. Bhawani Singh, District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, appeared for the respondents.

Factual Clarification Sought by the Division Bench

When the appeal first came up for hearing, the Division Bench identified two factual questions as significant for proper adjudication: first, whether the relocated site falls within the same cluster under the applicable excise policy; and second, whether Gehlot had already shifted and commenced operations at the new location. The Bench directed the District Excise Officer to file a specific affidavit addressing both points.

The District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, filed an affidavit in compliance. The affidavit disclosed that the relocation order was issued after obtaining requisite approval from Headquarter-level authorities. It further stated that the newly approved site falls within the very same cluster as contemplated under the governing excise policy. According to the affidavit, the relocation did not alter the cluster, the licence entitlement, or the territorial allocation — it was merely a change in the physical location of the shop within the permissible framework recognised by the policy. The Division Bench recorded that these factual assertions remained “substantially uncontroverted” during the hearing.

How the Bench Reasoned on Interim Relief

The Division Bench was careful to confine its reasoning to the narrow question before it: whether the ad-interim stay granted by the Single Judge should be modified or set aside at the appellate stage, while the writ petition itself remained pending. The Bench acknowledged that the writ petition had not been finally heard and that the stay application before the Single Judge was yet to be decided on merits. In those circumstances, it held that judicial propriety required it to refrain from any elaborate examination of the rival claims, so as not to prejudice either side during the pendency of the writ proceedings.

Within that self-imposed restraint, the Bench identified two competing considerations. On one side, the affidavit of the District Excise Officer prima facie showed that the relocation was effected within the same cluster and that the approval came from competent authorities in accordance with the administrative mechanism under the excise framework. On the other side, Gehlot's counsel contended that the subsisting ad-interim stay was causing him recurring and substantial financial prejudice on a day-to-day basis, severely disrupting the commercial activities permissible under his licence.

The Bench articulated the governing principle: interim orders are intended to preserve equities between parties and should not, unless compelling circumstances so warrant, inflict disproportionate hardship on one side pending adjudication of the substantive dispute. At the same time, it acknowledged that any interim arrangement fashioned by an appellate forum must not render the pending proceedings before the Single Judge infructuous or prejudge the issues involved.

Balancing these considerations against the specific facts — particularly the uncontroverted affidavit confirming same-cluster relocation — the Bench concluded that the ends of justice would be served by permitting Gehlot to continue operating from the relocated site until the Single Judge finally decides the stay application. The Bench reasoned that such an arrangement would protect Gehlot from continuing financial detriment while simultaneously preserving the Single Judge's authority to adjudicate the controversy independently on its own merits.

Directions and Safeguards

The Division Bench directed that Gehlot shall be permitted to continue operating and carrying on business from the relocated site approved by the competent excise authorities. The District Excise Officer, Jodhpur, was directed to ensure implementation of this arrangement and to permit Gehlot to conduct business from the shifted location in accordance with law.

The arrangement was expressly made operative only until the final disposal of the stay application pending before the Single Judge, or until any further order is passed by the Single Judge in the writ proceedings, whichever is earlier.

The Bench was explicit that none of its observations shall be construed as an expression of final opinion on any issue arising in the writ petition. It directed the Single Judge to decide the pending stay application as well as the writ petition independently, uninfluenced by any observation made in the appellate order, and strictly in accordance with law on the basis of the pleadings, material on record, and submissions of the parties. All questions of fact and law were left open for the Single Judge.

Outcome

The Division Bench disposed of D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 698/2026 on 12 June 2026. As an interim measure, Devendra Gehlot is permitted to operate his liquor vend from the relocated site at Kaylana Chouraha, Jodhpur, until the Single Judge finally disposes of the stay application in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8940/2026. The stay application and all pending applications in the special appeal also stand disposed of. The writ petition before the Single Judge remains pending.