01Facts
The petitioners, existing liquor licensees in Rajasthan, challenged the constitutional validity of Clauses 2.2.6, 2.2.7, and 2.2.8 of the Rajasthan Excise & Temperance Policy 2025–2029.
¶ 1.1, 3Under this new policy, the State introduced a "cluster" system (grouping 1–5 shops) and made the renewal of existing licenses conditional upon: (i) at least 70% of eligible licensees in a district applying for renewal, and (ii) all shops within a specific cluster opting for renewal.
¶ 3.1–3.3The petitioner’s renewal application was cancelled because one shop in her assigned cluster remained unrenewed, leading the Department to propose an auction for the entire cluster.
¶ 3.5The petitioners alleged these clauses were arbitrary, created economic coercion, and made an individual's right contingent on the actions of third parties.
¶ 4.302Issues
i.Whether Clauses 2.2.6, 2.2.7, and 2.2.8 of the Excise & Temperance Policy 2025–2029 are backbone-arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
¶ 3.6, 6.3.3ii.Whether a licensee has a vested or fundamental right to the renewal of a liquor license under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950.
¶ 4.1, 6.3.1iii.Whether the State’s exercise of its "exclusive privilege" in liquor trade is subject to judicial review on the grounds of reasonableness.
¶ 4.1, 4.203Law Applied
The Court applied the doctrine of "Res Extra Commercium," establishing that there is no fundamental right to trade in liquor under Article 19(1)(g).
¶ 6.3.1It relied on *Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka* [(1995) 1 SCC 574], which affirms the State’s exclusive privilege to manufacture and sell liquor and its power to create a monopoly.
¶ 4.2.1, 6.3.2The Court further applied Section 37 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, which explicitly states that no person has a claim to the renewal of a license.
¶ 5.2, 6.5.3While acknowledging that State action must meet the test of Article 14 (non-arbitrariness), the Court emphasized the principle of judicial restraint in matters of executive economic policy.
¶ 6.3.4, 6.3.5Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens
rajasthan excise act, 1950 Section 37
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that since liquor trade is a privilege and not a right, the State possesses wide discretion to formulate policies for revenue optimization and administrative efficiency.
¶ 6.2, 6.4It found the 70% district-wide threshold and the cluster-based renewal system to be rational mechanisms intended to prevent the "cherry-picking" of profitable shops while leaving non-viable areas unsettled, which often leads to illegal trade.
¶ 5.9, 6.4.1The Court rejected the argument of "economic coercion," noting that renewal is a voluntary choice subject to the policy's terms.
¶ 5.7, 5.9Furthermore, the court observed that the petitioners had accepted these conditions in their renewal applications, invoking a form of estoppel.
¶ 5.7, 6.6.2The grouping of shops into clusters was deemed an administrative exercise within the expertise of the Excise Commissioner, and in the absence of proven mala fides, the court declined to substitute its wisdom for that of the executive.
¶ 6.5.1, 6.7.105Holding
The Court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the impugned clauses of the Excise Policy 2025–2029 are neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
¶ 7The court answered that there is no fundamental or vested right to the renewal of a liquor license.
¶ 6.7It concluded that the cluster mechanism and the 70% threshold are valid policy tools for revenue stability and operate uniformly across the State.
¶ 6.4.1, 6.7Interference was refused as no manifest constitutional infirmity was demonstrated.
¶ 6.7All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
¶ 7Original Court PDF
Jamana W/o Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB]
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
![State's excise policy clustering liquor shops and conditioning renewal on collective district-wise thresholds is not arbitrary.. Jamana W/o Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2026:RJ-JD:9742-DB]. Rajasthan High Court. LawLens](/stories/thumbnails/state-s-excise-policy-clustering-liquor-shops-and-conditioning-renewal-on-collective-distr-bb7780b042274bd0b0d394765a349b5c.webp)