Interim Orders Shouldn't Inflict Disproportionate Hardship: Rajasthan High Court Allows Relocated Liquor Vend To Operate Pending Dispute
Image: Patrika
The Rajasthan High Court has reiterated that interim orders are meant to preserve equities between parties and should not inflict disproportionate hardship pending adjudication of a dispute. [2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257]
Making the observation, a Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal permitted a liquor shop licensee to continue operating from a relocated site approved by the Excise Department, noting that the relocation was within the same excise cluster and that the subsistence of an ad-interim stay was causing recurring financial prejudice to the licensee.
For context, the appellant had a valid license under the excise regime, and was granted permission to shift the location of his liquor shop from one site to the other. This order permitting such relocation was by passed by the District Excise Officer.
Against this order, a writ petition was filed by the respondent, and an ad-interim stay was ordered on the relocation order, thus preventing the appellant from running his shop at the new site. This ad-interim order was challenged before the Court.
It was argued by the appellant that the newly approved location was within the same cluster as contemplated under the governing excise policy, and the relocation did not alter the licence entitlement or territorial allocation. It was merely a change in physical location of the shop.
It was further submitted that owing to the ad- order, the appellant was subjected to recurring and substantial financial prejudice on a daily basis and disruption in commercial activities.
After hearing the contentions, the Court held that to secure the ends of justice, it would be adequate to permit the appellant to operate the shop at the relocated site until the stay application pending before the single judge was finally decided.
“…interim orders are intended to preserve equities between the parties and should not, unless compelling circumstances so warrant, inflict disproportionate hardship upon one side pending adjudication of the substantive dispute. At the same time, the Court is equally mindful that any interim arrangement fashioned by an appellate forum should not have the effect of rendering the pending proceedings before the learned Single Judge infructuous or prejudging the issues involved therein.”
The Court opined that the present order would safeguard the appellant from continuous financial detriment, at the same time, would preserve the authority of the single judge to independently adjudicate the controversy on its merits.
Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.
Title: Devendra Gehlot v Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 257