K RUDRAIAH RAJU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first two writ petitions are public interest petitions, in which the petitioners have challenged the legality of an order of the State Government under which contract for bottling Arrack was granted to respondents 3 to 10 on the ground that a largess involving a total turnover of Rs. 50 crores had been granted to them, in flagrant violation of law and on collateral consideration. In the other petitions the petitioners therein have questioned the legality of the same Government order.

(2.) The background and history of the cases are as follow : (1) Pursuant to the decision of the Government that arrack should be supplied to the consumers in sealed bottles or sachets, to avoid the possibiliy of adulteration, on 11th April, 1984, the Excise Commissoner invited applications from persons interested in undertaking the bottling of arrack at 18 places in the State most of which are District head quarters. The applicants were required to furnish their names and addresses and the previous experience and were required to send a Demand Draft of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the Excise Commmissioner, The successful applicants were required to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- including Rs. 10,000/- already sent along with the application. According to the notification, the successful applicant would be issued bottling licence as per rules on payment of the prescribed licence fee. The last date for receipt of the application was 21st April, 1984. Pursuant to the said notification, as many as 131 persons submitted their applications. By order dated 29th September 1984 the State Government selected respondents 3 to 10 for entrustment of bottling contract. The name, place of bottling and areas to be covered by respondents 3 to 10 are set out in the following statement : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_164_KANTLJ1_1986Html1.htm</FRM> Race Course Road, Bangalore.

(3.) (i). The petitioner in Writ petition No. 19851 of 1984 is a Civil Contractor, He has presented the petition in public interest. In paragraph 1 of the petition, he has stated thus :