The Rajasthan High Court has observed that interim orders are meant to maintain fairness between parties and should not cause disproportionate hardship while a case is still pending.

A Division Bench of Justice Farjand Ali and Justice Sunil Beniwal made the observation while allowing a liquor shop licensee to continue operating from a relocated site approved by the Excise Department.

The Court noted that the new location was within the same excise cluster and that the continuation of an ad-interim stay order was causing daily financial losses to the licensee.

The case arose after the District Excise Officer permitted the licensee to shift his liquor shop from one location to another. However, a respondent challenged this decision before the High Court, following which a Single Judge passed an ad-interim stay order, preventing the licensee from operating at the new site.

Challenging the stay order, the licensee argued that the relocation did not change his licence rights or territorial allocation and was only a change in the shop's physical location. He also submitted that the stay order was causing significant financial losses and disrupting his business operations every day.

After hearing both sides, the Court held that, in the interest of justice, the licensee should be allowed to run the shop from the relocated premises until the Single Judge decides the pending stay application.

The Bench emphasised that interim orders should balance the interests of both parties and should not unnecessarily burden one side before the final decision is made.

At the same time, the Court clarified that its order should not influence or prejudge the issues pending before the Single Judge.

It said the arrangement would protect the appellant from continuous financial harm while preserving the Single Judge's authority to independently decide the matter on its merits.

Accordingly, the appeal was disposed of.

Case Title: Devendra Gehlot v. Vaibhav Singh Bhati & Ors.