K VASIKERAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is questioning the legality and validity of the order dated 30th July, 2002, in proceedings No. FD 148 EDC 2002 on the file of the 1st respondent vide Annexure-C and to quash the consequential Notification issued by the 2nd respondent in so far as it relates to the petitioner vide Notification bearing No. ECS:8: AUG:2002 dated 1-8-2002 vide Annexure-D.

(2.) THE grievance made out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is that, the petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of right to vend arrack in polythene sachets for the Excise Year 2002-03 in respect of Sandur Taluk, Bellary District. The bid of the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 62,00,000/- lakhs par month was accepted and he was allowed to vend arrack in polythene sachets for the period from 1-7-2002 to 30-6-2003. Accordingly, the petitioner's bid was provisionally accepted on 3-6-2002 and it was sent to the 2nd respondent for confirmation. The 2nd respondent confirmed his bid for sandur Taluk on 5-6-2002 and the order of confirmation was served on the petitioner on 30-6-2002. The petitioner was then granted temporary license to start the business on 1-7-2002, which is as per Rules 16 and 17 of the karnataka Excise (Lease of Right of Retail vend of Liquor) Rules, 1969. Accordingly, he has entered into an agreement of lease with the 1st respondent incorporating the terms and conditions under which the right of retail vend of arrack was leased in his favour within 15 days from the date of confirmation order dated 30-7-2003. As stipulated under the relevant provisions that is rule 17 (1) (a) within 15 days from the date of receipt of confirmation order as it is 30-6-2002 the petitioner had to make an application by furnishing the security deposit for an amount equivalent to one month's rent in the form of cash deposit or Government securities or other Securities recognised by the Government or an irrevocable guarantee given by a Scheduled Bank.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner did not comply with the furnishing of the 1st Bank Guarantee itself that was due on 15-7-2002 nor complied with Rules 16 and 17 of the Karnataka Excise (Lease of retail Vend of Liquor) Rules, 1969. The petitioner did not even seek for extension of time before the Government on or before 28-9-2002 and also that the petitioner did not furnish the bank guarantee within 15 days from the receipt of confirmation order and did not pay the monthly rental for July, 2002, in time, i. e. , on or before 10th of every month but, however, he continued to carry on the business without making any payment or furnishing bank guarantee inspite of making repeated request.