KUSHAL GUTTEDAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a registered excise contractor has questioned the auction held on 13-6-2001 and acceptance of the bid of the respondent 5 to vend liquor in Bangalore urban district on the ground that the excise rules have been vitiated.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is an excise contractor and he participated in the auction held on 31-5-2001 and deposited a sum of Rs. 4,84,50,600/- as required under Rule 13 of the rules and made his offer. As his bid was not accepted and the authorities postponed the said auction, it was subsequently re-auctioned on 13-6-2001. However, the petitioner did not participate in the re-auction. On that particular day only two bidders competed and the 5th respondent was ultimately declared as the highest bidder to offer a sum of Rs. 6,50,00,050/- which was provisionally accepted. It is the case of the petitioner that the 5th respondent had to deposit the said sum on the very same day as provided under Rule 13 of the karnataka excise (lease of the right of retail vend of liquors) rules, 1969, but he has not deposited the full amount. On the other hand, the petitioner submits that a demand draft for Rs. One crore and odd was stolen and that the demand draft along with the other amount was given to the respondent as emd. The 5th respondent is not eligible to participate at all. Accepting the offer made by the 5th respondent who is not financially sound and his business turnover is not over Rs. 2,00,000/- accepting the bid of over 2 crore rupees is against the interest of the state exchequer; he is not reliable and dependable contractor. Therefore, his representation to reject his bid also was not heeded to. The police complaint was lodged against the theft of the demand draft and the investigation is in progress and it was disclosed that the 5th respondent has given the demand draft and the bank refused to honour the same. Therefore, he filed this writ petition for the following reliefs:

(3.) HEARD Sri madhusudan r. Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri a. n. jayaram, Advocate general with Sri n. k. ramesh, additional government Advocate for respondents 1 to 4.