JUDGMENT 1. - M/s. Samrat Bottlers (P) Ltd. (for short the petitioner) has challenged Annexure-26 dated 18-7-1938, under which it was communicated to the petitioner that his licence for bottling plant cannot be renewed. The challenge as aforesaid is on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory in as much as two licences, viz., of M/s. Alwar Malt and Agro Food Manufacturing Company Pvt. Ltd., Alwar and M/s. Ajanta Chemicals P. Ltd. Alwar which had been granted bottling licence for the period ending 31st March, 1988, were granted renewal whereas the licence of the petitioner who is better situated was not renewed. 2. The grant of the licence is regulated by the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (for short the Act) and Rajasthan Excise Rules 1951 (for short the Rules). Under Section 16 of the Act, no excisable article shall be manufactured and under its clause (d), no liquor shall be bottled for sale except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf by the Excise Commissioner (or by an Excise Officer duly empowered in this behalf). It appears that State Government took a policy of giving licence for bottling of liquor and one licence was issued to the petitioner for the period ending 31st March, 1988. The licence was issued to the petitioner on 15th Nov., 1987. In other words, the licence of the petitioner for bottling of liquor was effective only for a period of 41/2 months. Similar licences in Alwar for bottling liquor was given to Alwar Malt and Agro Food Manufacturing Company (P) Ltd. on 23.5.87, to M/s. Ajanta Chemicals P. Ltd. Alwar, on 14.5.85 and they too were to end on 31st March, 1998 It appears that the petitioner had started the construction of necessary sheds and had dug a well. It had placed orders for the machinery so that the work of bottling of liquor could be taken up. But the petitioner could not in terms of the licence start bottling of liquor by 31st March, 1988. He was called upon by the District Excise Officer under Annexure-10, dated 12.1.88 to deposit renewal fee by 20th February, 1998, so that the licence may be renewed. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being renewal fee vide-Annexure dated 26.2.1988, also requested for renewal of the licence. He was called upon by the District Excise Officer under Annexure-10, dated 12.1.88 to deposit renewal fee by 20th February, 1998, so that the licence may be renewed. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being renewal fee vide-Annexure dated 26.2.1988, also requested for renewal of the licence. Under his letter dated 10.3.1988, the petitioner wrote to the District Excise Officer that electric connection has been taken, lease-deed for land has been executed, godown has also been constructed and a boundary wall too has been constructed. A tube well has also been dug and electrical connection has been taken for the purpose. The construction of the remaining part of the building was going on and order has been placed for necessary machinery etc. But under the impugned order, the renewal of the licence of the petitioner for bottling of liquor was not done whereas the renewal of the licence, which was earlier granted to Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals was done. 3. Notices were given to non-petitioners and reply has been filed and so far as the alleged discrimination is concerned, a case has been set-up that the petitioner on the one hand and Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals on the other hand were not similarly situate in as much as the petitioner was not in a position to start bottling of liquor, whereas the other two were in a position to start the same. I therefore, their licences have been renewed and thereafter a notice was issued to each of them that in case they do not start the bottling by 31.5.1988, their licences will be cancelled. Thus. the case of the non-petitioners is that whereas the licence to Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals have been renewed, because they were in position to start bottling the liquor licence of the petitioner was not renewed because he was not in such a position. 4. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that an appeal lies under Section 9-A of the Act to the Divisional- Commissioner and that it is alternative, efficacious remedy and therefore, this Court should not exercise its powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India. It has also been contended by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents that the matter arises out of a contract, therefore, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. It has also been contended by Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the respondents that the matter arises out of a contract, therefore, the writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. Lastly, it was contended by him that nobody has a fundamental right to issue of a licence for bottling of liquor even if the licence should have been renewed and has not been renewed because the Exice Commissioner has powers to cancel the licence, no case for interference is made out. 5. There is no dispute that so far as an excisable article is concerned, no body has a right to trade in it and it is also true that as provided under Section 31 of the Act, there is no right of renewal of a licence. But the law is settled that the state must act reasonably and not arbitrarily. So far as the existence of alternative remedy is concerned, we may state that it is not absolute bar to exercise the powers under Article 226 and despite the fact that an alternative remedy exists this Court can in a proper case whether the alternative remedy has been availed or not availed, in case it is satisfied that the State or its Officers have acted arbitrarily and we may state that if the State acts arbitrarily, it acts discriminatory. this Court does invoke its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. We shall presently show that there appears to be no jurisdiction (Sic justification) for having renewed the licence of Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals, shall also presently show whether they were similarly situated, rather were not situate in a better way than the petitioner, their licences were renewed. Thus the Excise Commissioner/State Government has acted arbitrarily in not renewing the licence of the petitioner whereas renewed the licence of the above named two firms. We have already given about and we may that so far as the licences of Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals for bottling of liquor for the period ending 31st March 1983 are concerned, they were issued on 23.5.87 and 14.5.87, respectively. We have already given about and we may that so far as the licences of Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals for bottling of liquor for the period ending 31st March 1983 are concerned, they were issued on 23.5.87 and 14.5.87, respectively. The licence to the petitioner was though issued in October, but having been received by the petitioner on 15.11.87, we may take it to have been issued on that date, if Alwar Malt and Ajanta Chemicals, even after issue of licence to them in the month of 1987, could not complete the installation of the machines etc. could not be in a position to undertake bottling of liquor by 31.3.1988, how could it be expected that the petitioner, who had only received the licence on 15.11.87 i.e., after almost about six months of the issue of licences to the other two firms, be in a position to have, started bottling of liquor. The petitioner had applied for renewal and on being asked to deposit the requisite fee in February, 1988, therefore, if even on inspection, it was found that the two firms were in a position to undertake bottling of liquor immediately, and they can be in position, having been granted the licence in May, 1987, and the petitioner was not in a position to immediately start bottling of liquor, having been grant licence in the month of Nov., 1987, as aforesaid, it can hardly be said that ti grant of renewal of licence to which undoubtedly the petitioner had no rig like the two others, renewal of the petitioner when he was granted to two others (sic). The State or Exice Commissioner cannot be allowed to pick and choose and if such a practice is allowed then many questions may be raised for reasons which may not be stated herein. Therefore, though as stated earlier, no body has right to trade, no body has right to any licence for an excisable article which will include a licence of bottling of liquor, but every body has a right to be treated equally with others who are similarly situate. 6. Therefore, though as stated earlier, no body has right to trade, no body has right to any licence for an excisable article which will include a licence of bottling of liquor, but every body has a right to be treated equally with others who are similarly situate. 6. The action of the Excise Commissioner/State Government in refusing the renewal of the licence of bottling liquor to the petitioner, who had invested sufficient amount and it may be stated that even as per the report available with respondents, it can be said that in May, 1988, even the plant and machniery ordered by the petitioners were lying ready was arbitrary, because two person who were similarly situated, rather placed in a weaker position, licences ha been renewed. We are of the opinion that the licence of the petitioner, who had deposited Rs. 25,000/- on being asked to Jo so even in January, 19E should have been renewed. The petitioner thus has been dealt with discriminatory. The Excise Commissioner does not appear to have acted fairly and has acted arbitrarily, therefore, we hereby allow this writ petition and direct that the licence of the petitioner shall be renewed for the period ending 31st March, 1989, provided the petitioners starts bottling liquor within a period of one month from the date of the grant of renewal. We direct the Excise Commissioner/State Government to renew the licence of the petitioner for the peril ending 31st March, 1989, immediately. 7. Cost made easy.Petition allowed. *******