JUDGMENT 1. :- The petition deserves to be allowed on the admitted fact that the petitioner had stood as guarantee in respect of the contract taken by Shri Topandas, Bhanwar Singh, Altaf Hussain and party in respect of Shop Nos. 1 and 2 only, situated in Neem Ka Thana for the period from 15.5.1982 to 31.3.1983. The guarantee was in regard to the lifting of liquor by the said shops to the minimum of 2,22,200/-. Photo-stat copy of the guarantee-deed is attached as Annexure-1. It is also not disputed that there was no short fall for the aforesaid period in respect of the afore-mentioned shops Nos. 1 and 2 as for the relevant period the goods worth Rs. 2,24,590/- had been lifted by the said shops and the lifting exceeded the minimum guaranted amount. Even though the liability in the guarantee-deed was for shops Nos. 1 and 2 for lifting the liquor but still the petitioners were issued a notice dated 6.2.1985 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 for making the payment of the sum of Rs. 3,79,724.91 on the ground that the petitioners were liable to pay for all the ten shops of Sikar Group for the year 1982-83. It is the contention of the petitioners that they had never stood guarantee for all the shops of the Sikar Group and they had guaranteed for shop Nos. 1 and 2 only. 2. The contention of the respondents in the written statement, that there were 10 shops in the Sikar Group for the sale of Indian Made Foreign Liquor and for the entire group there was a short fall as mentioned in the notice and, therefore, the Government was entitled to recover the entire amount from the guarantors, cannot be accepted. The guarantor is liable for the action mentioned in the guarantee-deed. The guarantee-deed relates to shop Nos. 1 and 2 only. Shop Nos. 1 and 2 are not in default. It cannot be said that even though the shops for which the petitioners had stood for guarantee, are not in default, but still they are to be held for the guarantee of the other shops for which they were never concerned nor any deed was executed by the petitioners. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent State, which is not surprising. No record has been produced. 3. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent State, which is not surprising. No record has been produced. It is being noticed time and again by this court that in the cases where the State is a party, there is hardly any effective representation by any counsel and even if some counsel is present, the said counsel either has not got the brief, but invariably no record is available. The present writ petition relates to the year 1985 and even otherwise the facts having not been denied in the written statement, the contention in the written statement cannot be accepted that even though the petitioners had not stood guarantee for all the 10 shops of Sikar Group, but still they are held liable for 10 shops instead of 2 shops for which they had stood guarantee. Once, the guarantee had been accepted by the respondents in respect of Shop Nos. 1 and 2 so far as the petitioners are concerned, the petitioners cannot be made liable for any higher amount than mentioned in the guarantee-deed itself. It is also not disputed that the shops Nos. 1 and 2 were not in default and material worth more than the guaranteed amount had been lifted, as such no liability could be incurred on the petitioners.For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed with a cost of Rr.-1,000/-. The notice dated 6.2.1985 (Annexure- 2) is set aside.Petition Allowed with costs. *******