P J VARKEY Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question to be determined in this case is whether the Revenue Recovery Proceedings taken against the petitioner who was the highest bidder at an auction held for the purpose of the grant of the privilege to sell by retail toddy for the year 1968-69 and who did not comply with the conditions of the auction are invalid as not supportable by law.

(2.) BY a notification published in the Kerala Gazette extraordinary dated 8th February 1968, it was notified among other things that the privilege to vend toddy in Shop No. 30 of the Kuravilangad Range of kottayam division will be auctioned on 19 21968. At the auction the petitioner's bid of Rs. 25,600/-was the highest and that bid was accepted. The petitioner did not however deposit 10 percent of the bid amount as required by condition no. 10 of the conditions published along with the notice in the gazette of 8th february, 1968 The right to vend toddy was therefore re-sold by auction on 10 41968 and the highest bid obtained was Rs. 18,300/ -the deficit being thus Rs. 7300/ -. Under the conditions of sale the petitioner should pay this amount. So this amount with interest and the expenses totalling Rs. 8723. 30 was demanded from the petitioner by Ext. P2 notice dated 6 81968. The petitioner not having complied with the demand, Revenue Recovery steps have been initiated against the petitioner and the prayer in this petition is to quash Ext. P2 demand notice as well as the Revenue Recovery steps that have been taken.

(3.) THE relevant part of S. 17 is in these terms: "17. Duty on liquor or intoxicating drugs: A duty of excise or luxury tax or both shall, if the Government so direct, be levied on all liquor and intoxicating drugs. (a) ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ (b) ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ (c) ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ (d) ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ (e) ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ (f) ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~ (g) sold in any part of the State. "