BHAGWAN DASS PAWAIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed to have the orders of respondents Nos. 2 to 5 for grant of licence L-9 (Licence for wholesale of country liquor in the Union territory of Delhi) for the period 1989-90 in favour of respondents No, 6 to 9 quashed, as being against the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act 1914, as applicable to Delhi, the Delhi Liquor Licence Rules 1976, made thereunder, and the terms of the tender for grant of the said L-9 licence. Originally there were two petitioners, the first petitioner being the sole proprietor of the second. Objections were raised about the maintainability of this petition by these petitioners they being themselves ineligible for grant of L-9 licence. By application (CM 3632/89) filed on 22.8.1989 M/s Vindhyachal Distilleries (P) Ltd. and Mr. Vijay Kumar Khanna, Managing Director thereof, were added as third and fourth petitioners respectively in these proceedings. This was by order dated 5.9.1989, and on the statement made that no further pleadings or documents were required to be filed on behalf of the added petitioners except as to what they had stated in their application for being impleaded as parties. There are Four sets of respondents. The first set of respondent being respondent No. 1 would be Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Chemicals and Petrochemicals, Ministry of Industry; the second set of respondents comprises the 2nd, 3-d, 4th and 5th respondents being the Lt. Governor, Secretary (Finance), Commissioner of Excise and Collector of Excise, of the Delhi Administration. This set would also comprise respondent No. 4A who was the Commissioner of Excise at the time when decision was taken to grant the licence to respondents Nos. 6 to 9 The third set of respondents comprises respondents Nos. 6 to 9, the 6th respondent being M/s Chhattisgarh Distilleries Ltd., and 7th, 8th and 9th respondents being its Directors: The fourth set of respondent comprises the Commissioner of Excise, U.P., being respondent No. 10.

(2.) During the pendency of this petition certain interim orders were made. For the purpose of decision of this petition we do not think it necessary to refer to those orders except in passing.

(3.) The case pertains to the supply of 160 lakh to 190 lakh bulk litres of country liquor to Delhi for the period from 1.5.1989 to 31.3.1990. Public notice inviting tenders for the grant of licence in Form L-9,CLW-1 for the wholesale supplies of 50 underproof country liquor was issued on 21.4.1989 with the approval of the Lt. Governor, the last date of submission of tenders being 1.5.1989. Earlier, decision had been taken that tenders for the wholesale supplies would be issued by the Excise Department of the Delhi Administration and the payment for the supplies which were to be released from the Bonded Warehouses would be made by the DTDC (Delhi Tourism Development Corporation) to the supplier. Work in regard to retail sale of SO Degree country liquor was transferred to DTDC. Steps were then taken to constitute the Negotiation Committee ('NC' for short as provided under the relevant Delhi Liquor Licence Rules 1976 (Rules 32 and 33). Earlier the NC comprised the Finance Secretary, Excise Commissioner and Secretary (Law and Judicial), all of Delhi Administration. Since decision was taken to entrust the work relating to retail sale of country liquor to DTDC, a public sector undertaking, and the payment for procurement of wholesale supply was to be made by the DTDC, it was suggestd that Chairman, DTDC, be also appointed as a member of the NC. This was approved by the Lt. Governor. Six tenders were received in response to the public notice and these were (in the ascending order of rates quoted by them) :-