JUDGMENT : SAMEER JAIN, J. 1. Both these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking declaration of the action of respondents in denying the renewal of their liquor shops due to late payment of advance annual guarantee amount as violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India as well as to declare Clause 2.5.6 of the Excise Policy 2022-23 as illegal, unconstitutional, arbitrary and to strike down the same with further directions to the respondents to renew license of the petitioner at Rs. 93,67,336/- and Rs. 1,56,35,560/- respectively with 12 percent addition for the year 2022-23 as per first clause of 2.5.3 and not to discriminate only on the basis that the petitioners have delayed Advance Guarantee Amount by two days. 2. The case of the petitioner as per them is that they applied for renewal of license for composite liquor shop. For the year 2021-22, they were highest bidders and the shops were allotted to them and sanction was issued. As per Clause 2.5.3 of the new Liquor Policy of 2022-23 and 2023-24, the petitioners gave option to renew their license as per the table mentioned therein and the petitioners were offered the renewal as per Clause 2.5.3. 3. As per pleadings of the petitioners, they were required to get renewal only if they deposit the security amount, renewal fee, advanced guarantee amount and 50% of the annual license fee by the due date. The petitioners were interested in renewal of their shops and in the light of the conditions, they paid the security amount, renewal fee by the specified date/extended dates. 4. The petitioners were interested in renewal of their shops and in the light of the conditions, they paid the security amount, renewal fee by the specified date/extended dates. 4. It is claim of the petitioners that the advance guarantee amount was required to be paid by the due date i.e. 19th March, 2022 but due to non-functioning of server, the petitioners could deposit the same by 21st March, 2002 as on 19th March, 2022, there was a holiday and merely because of delay of two days in payment of the annual guarantee amount, which was beyond their control, their case has not been considered for renewal and on account of the same, license of their shops has been cancelled on 22nd March, 2022 by the respondents while relying upon Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy and therefore, the action of the respondents has been assailed alleging the same to be arbitrary, irrational, illegal and ulra-vires to the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 as well as the Rules of 1956 framed thereunder. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the year 2020-21, the Policy for Allotment of Liquor Shops was by lottery mode. It was only in the year 2021-22 that e-auction qua the highest bidder was introduced. As per the new Excise Policy of 2022-23 and 2023-24 dated 05.02.2022, for renewal of license, the renewal fee and security amount has to be deposited mandatorily in time which has been complied with by the petitioners within time. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy 2022-23 and 2023-24 which reads as under: ^^vuqKk/kkjh }kjk fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa uohuhdj.k Qhl o /kjksgj jkf'k ds vUrj dh jkf'k tek djkus ds ckn vfxze okf"kZd xkj.Vh rFkk okf"kZd ykbZlsUl Qhl dh fu/kkZfjr jkf'k tek ugha djkus ij mldk uohuhdj.k fujLr dj uohuhdj.k Qhl o /kjksgj jkf'k tCr dj yh tk;sxhA** 7. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court upon Annexure-7 dated 22.03.2022 issued by the respondents wherein while relying upon Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy 2022-23 and 2023-24, it has been ordered that for non-depositing of due advance guarantee amount by 19th March, 2022, the amount of renewal fees, security amount and annual license fee amount of the petitioners is forfeited. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that such action of the respondents in not renewing the license of the petitioners is de-hors the Excise Rules and the provisions of the Excise Act more particularly, Section 42(d) and Section 74. It is further submitted that the petitioners have made substantial compliance by depositing 90% of the amount towards security, renewal fee, annual license fee and only on account of delay of two days in depositing the amount towards advance guarantee amount, renewal of license has been denied in the case of the petitioners. Learned counsel further submitted that Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy is not only arbitrary but irrational. He has relied upon judgment of the Apex Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal and Others, (2011) 1 SCC 236 wherein doctrine of substantial compliance was considered and it was held that merely on account of the procedural delay/lapses, the substantial rights should not be affected. He submitted that in the case in hand, the delay in depositing of a meager amount towards advance guarantee amount, which was directory but not mandatory and was beyond control of the petitioners as there was technical glitch in the server, should be ignored and in alternative, he submitted that Cause 2.5.6 be declared as illegal, irrational whereby merely on delay, the renewal fees, security amount and annual license fee has been forfeited. He further submitted that discrimination is made between fresh applicants and the petitioners as they have been granted 15 days time for depositing the amount unlike the petitioners. 8. Per-contra, learned Advocate General appearing for the respondents while raising preliminary objections submitted that the equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be exercised by persons who have come with clean hands before the Court. As per him, in the case in hand, the application (Annexure-R/2) submitted by the petitioners for online renewal was concealed wherein the petitioners themselves admitted for depositing the amount in question within the prescribed time failing which in accordance with the Excise Policy, appropriate action could have been initiated against them. The contention of learned Advocate General is that once the said application/ undertaking duly supported by affidavit was submitted and the same was suppressed before this Court, the instant writ petitions could not have been filed specially suppressing the same. The contention of learned Advocate General is that once the said application/ undertaking duly supported by affidavit was submitted and the same was suppressed before this Court, the instant writ petitions could not have been filed specially suppressing the same. Learned Advocate General relied upon the e-challan dated 19.03.2022 generated at 18.47 hrs. and at 21.49 hrs respectively annexed with both the writ petitions in order to show that the server was very well functioning on 19.03.2022. He further submitted that the petitioner-Nitesh Kumar Verma has signed his writ petition and affidavits in support of the same marking his signature as Nitesh Kumar while in the application/undertaking dated 21.03.2022 (Annexure-6), he has marked his signatures Nitesh Kumar which exhibits different signatures rather the Annexure-6 is a forged and created document not belonging to the petitioner-Nitesh Kumar Verma. Thus, the affidavit filed by the petitioner-Nitesh Kumar Verma is forged ad on this count alone, the writ petition should be dismissed. 9. Learned Advocate General further submitted that from the pleadings made in Paras 12 and 13 of the writ petitions, it is an admitted fact that the petitioners were to deposit the advance guarantee amount by 19th March, 2022 but they deposited the same on 21st March, 2022 and as such, the prayers made in the writ petition is also an afterthought. The validity of Clause 2.5.6 of the Excise Policy is only challenged at the belated stage after renewal of the petitioner was struck down on account of late deposit and the amount was forfeited. Learned Advocate General submitted that neither there was a technical glitch nor any evidence has been brought on record with regard to the same. The e-challan generated and exhibited by the petitioners of 19th March, 2022 bears testimony of the said fact. He further submitted that on 20th March, 2022 (Sunday), on-line system was operational and even otherwise, the amount could have been deposited in cash as agreed by the petitioners themselves in Annexure-R/2. 10. Learned Advocate General submitted that a licensee has no vested right for renewal of license and in this regard, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in M.R. Patel vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 343 . 10. Learned Advocate General submitted that a licensee has no vested right for renewal of license and in this regard, he relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in M.R. Patel vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 343 . He further submitted that meaning of renewal is a fresh grant and the principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation cannot be invoked to alter or amend specific terms of contract. In this regard, he relied upon judgments rendered by the Apex Court in Gajraj Singh and Others vs. The State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Others, (1997) 1 SCC 650 and Assistant Excise Commissioner and Others vs. Issac Peter and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 104 . He also submitted that trade in liquor is not a fundamental right as held in the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in State of Punjab and Others vs. Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. and Others, (2004) 11 SCC 26 . He further submitted that contractual obligations cannot be challenged when entered with open eyes as held in Har Shankar vs. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Others, (1975) 1 SCC 737 . He also relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav and Others vs. Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, (2013) 11 SCC 531 wherein it was held that the writ petition is not maintainable on account of concealment, suppression and misstatement. 11. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the sides, scanned records of the writ petition and gone through the judgments cited at bar. 12. On consideration of above, this Court is of the view that the petitioners have approached this Court for declaring action of the respondents in denying renewal of the petitioners' shop on account of late payment of advance guarantee amount and forfeiting the security and renewal fee etc. in light of Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. It is an admitted fact by the petitioners that the due date for depositing the advance guarantee amount was 19th March, 2022 which was not complied with and the deposit was made on 21st March, 2022. in light of Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy as illegal, unconstitutional and arbitrary. It is an admitted fact by the petitioners that the due date for depositing the advance guarantee amount was 19th March, 2022 which was not complied with and the deposit was made on 21st March, 2022. In the case in hand, the petitioners have failed to bring on record any screen shot, certificate of bank or any impossibility faced by them apart from mere assertion in the writ petitions rather the respondents have brought on record e-challan dated 19.03.2022 in both the writ petitions showing the amount deposited by common bank serial number at various times. The respondents have also brought on record Annexure-R/2 which is an application/undertaking supported by an affidavit wherein the petitioners have specifically stated that they will deposit the advanced guarantee amount within the specified given time either by bank or in cash which they have failed to do so. It is also an admitted position that on Sunday i.e. 20th March, 2022, online payment mode was operational. In this regard, the reliance placed by the respondents holds the field that the contractual obligations cannot be challenged when entered with open eyes as held in Har Shankar (supra). 13. Reliance placed by the learned Advocate General upon judgment of the Apex Court in Lakshmanan vs. B.R. Mangalagiri and Others, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 33 also comes to the rescue of the respondents wherein it is held that when the contractual terms are not carried out and there is default committed by one side as a part of contract, they are entitled to forfeit the entire amount. 14. In Government contracts and State matters wherein the time is essence and policies are issued, they have to be adhered to in letter and spirit. No relaxation can be granted as the rules of game are very open, wide and in public domain. It is not an individual transaction which can be relaxed nor the respondents have power to bypass the provisions of the policy. Adequate time has been given to the petitioners as well as fresh licensees. The petitioners have themselves given an undertaking which was concealed in the present writ petitions and not brought on record whereby they have agreed to deposit the arrears/due amount within time either in cash or by way of online mode. 15. Adequate time has been given to the petitioners as well as fresh licensees. The petitioners have themselves given an undertaking which was concealed in the present writ petitions and not brought on record whereby they have agreed to deposit the arrears/due amount within time either in cash or by way of online mode. 15. The judgments cited by the petitioners on account of substantial compliance cannot come to rescue of the petitioners as time was essence as per policy and was of mandatory nature. Further, compliance of due deposit was undertaken on affidavit which was concealed in the present writ petition by the petitioners marked as Annexure-R/2. Further, there is no sufficient and justified cause or explanation which exhibit that it was an act of impossibility for the petitioners to deposit the money. They have accepted the rules of game which could not have been altered and the contractual obligations cannot be challenged when entered with open eyes. The petitioners are estopped and the doctrine of acquiescence and waiver too come in their way for renewal of license. 16. The judgment cited by the petitioner (supra) on substantial compliance is distinguishable for the above reasons. Further, in the case in hand, the condition no. 2.5.3 and 2.5.6 was a substantial compliance and not a procedural compliance and there was no vested right for renewal of license. 17. It is time and again held by the Apex Court that trade in liquor is not a fundamental right as held in Devans Modern Brewaries Ltd. (supra). 18. The reliance placed by the petitioners on provisions of Rule 72-A of the Excise Rules is also misconceived in the light of their own undertaking and Clause 2.5.6 of the new Excise Policy. The petitioners have come before this Court at the belated stage only after issuance of Annexure-7 dated 22.03.2022 whereas the Excise Policy in hand was issued on 05.02.2022. The contract of the petitioners is also not worth consideration rather the essential documents were concealed from the Court. The equitable jurisdiction can only be applied when the petitioners come with clean hands. The Apex Court has time and again held that there is no equity against fraud. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sciemed Overseas Incorporation vs. BOC India Ltd. and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 70 . The equitable jurisdiction can only be applied when the petitioners come with clean hands. The Apex Court has time and again held that there is no equity against fraud. In this regard, reliance is placed upon judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Sciemed Overseas Incorporation vs. BOC India Ltd. and Others, (2016) 3 SCC 70 . The challenge to vires of Clause 2.5.6 is also uncalled for and unjustified for the reasons and judgments of Apex Court referred above. 19. In the light of above, this Court does not find any substance in both these writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of in above terms.