HANS RAJ GHAI Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, several reliefs were claimed, including validity of rules framed by the respondents. However, during proceedings, the challenge to legal provisions were given up and the petitioners confined their attack to the orders issued by the respondents on 25. 7. 1977, 27. 7. 1997 (in W. P. (C) 551/1977) and to the orders dated 17. 2. 1978, 14. 3. 1978 in the second petition (W. P. (C) 453/1978 ).

(2.) THE facts necessary to decide the cases are that the petitioners" firm (hereafter referred to as "the firm"; its original partners having died during the pendency of the proceedings; their legal representatives being impleaded in the present cases) had successfully bid in auction held on 30. 3. 1977, by the respondent Excise Authorities for a liquor shop in Hari Nagar Ashram, New Delhi. The petitioners bid Rs. 31 lakhs. On 2. 4. 1977, the L-10 licence to vend liquor was issued to the firm. The licence, a copy of which is part of the record, also incorporated the conditions for auction which stipulated that the successful bidder had to furnish Rs. 1 lakh as security for the due observance of the licence. Under Clause 13 (a), the bidder had to pay 1/10th of the bid money on the spot and the balance in 10 instalments, payable by 7th of every month following the opening of shop. The conditions also stipulated that in case of default of such payment, the licence could be re-sold and if the price in the subsequent bid was lower, the balance or difference would be recovered from the original bidder. Clause 14 (a) empowered the Government to impose penalty in addition to cancellation in the event of default in the payment of monthly instalment. Clause 18 (ii) prescribed that the successful bidder had to open the shop within a week of issuance of licence and that failure to do so would result in forfeiture of the advance deposit. The bidder was responsible for damages or loss of revenue to the Government.

(3.) THE petitioners claim that still head duty (excise duty component of the fixed retail sale price of certain quantity of liquor) was increased on 6. 4. 1977 within a week of the issuance of licence; it reduced the profit margin assured by the respondent, at the time of auction. It is also alleged that on 16. 5. 1977, the existing timings were altered, to the petitioners" disadvantage. They allege that in the first week after grant of licence for five days, respondents did not supply liquor to the outlet for sale though they were bound to do so. In addition, it is alleged that the respondents did not permit the petitioners to charge sales tax from the customers.