TALUK EXCISE OFFICER Vs. S U A LATHIEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Government has preferred the Writ Appeal challenging the order of the single Judge dated 23.04.1998 made in W.P.No.8343 of 1989.

(2.) The prayer in the writ petition was for certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 22.03.1989 in proceedings No.Na.Ka.P.767/83 of the second respondent. It is stated that the respondent in the writ appeal/writ petitioner originally participated in an auction for vending arrack on 20.06.1983 and one Palanivelu became a successful bidder and he offered for a higher rate, however, pursuant to the request of the writ petitioner/respondent herein, a re-auction was ordered on 02.07.1983, in which, the writ petitioner agreed to pay a Kist of Rs.30,150/- per month and became a successful bidder, which was confirmed on 13.07.1983. The writ petitioner also paid three months Kist on 04.08.1983 as contemplated under the Rule 17(1) of Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shop (Discipline Auction), Rules 1981. But, thereafter, he could not identify a correct place so as to conduct the business. The department once again called for re-auction on 16.09.1983, which was challenged by the writ petitioner erstwhile in W.P.No.8267 of 1983 and this Court by order dated 25.10.1983, granted stay in WPMP.No.12673 of 1983 on condition that the petitioner should identify a proper place for getting license on or before 07.11.1983. After identifying a place in S.F.No.28, Block No.29 of Ward 'D' of Thiruchirappalli Municipality, the writ petitioner applied on 7.11.1983 for a license. Pursuant to this, the department gave the license on 13.01.1984. But immediately thereafter, a 3rd party filed a suit in O.S.No.137 of 1984 and obtained interim injunction restraining him from continuing the business in I.A.59 of 1984 and aggrieved against the same, as he could not conduct the business, the petitioner would contend that he surrendered the license as early as on 23.01.1984. No further re-auction was called for. But on 31.01.1984, the Government issued a demand notice dated 25.01.1984 and the same was served on the petitioner on 16.02.1984 and was received by the petitioner on 17.02.1984 calling upon him to pay an amount of Rs.2,50,438.54. Since, he could not appear as stated so in the notice, as the notice itself was served on 17.02.1984, a subsequent notice was also issued and immediately thereafter, the present impugned order was passed without waiting for any reply or any explanation of the petitioner.

(3.) The only challenge made is that the petitioner was not given any opportunity and it is against the principles of natural justice and the order passed is an exparte order and if any chance would have been given, he would have proved before the authorities concerned.