M CHANDRAN Vs. EXCISE OFFICER ARAKKONAM TOWN ARAKKONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner offered his bid at Rs.8,010 in a public auction held on 28.5.1981 for disposal of Arrack Shop No.11, Achamanaidukandigai, Arakkonam Taluk for the lease period 1981-82. THE first respondent felt that the highest bid of Rs.8,010 offered by the writ petitioner was inadequate, and the reauction on 16.6.1981 in which on Thiru D.Lava had offered at Rs.11,199.99 the upset price of Rs.15,000. In the meantime, the writ petitioner filed a W.P.No.3678 1981 for issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the reauction notice dated 8.6.1981 in of the said Arrack Shop No.11 situate in Arakonam Town, and also filed W.M.P.No.5612 1981 wherein this Court granted interim stay. THE above writ petition came to be disposed by this Court only on 30.7.1982. By reason of the interim order of this Court, the respondent could not dispose of the shops. In view of the fact that the respondent was not in a to realize the lease amount as a result of the interim stay granted by this Court, the lease amount was considered to be a loss on the part of the Government and consequently, steps were taken by the respondent to recover the said amount by invoking Rule 21 Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shop (Disposal in Auction) Rule, 1981, to recover the amount as a notional loss sustained by the Government from the writ petitioner. these circumstances, the District Collector, North Arcot, by the impugned proceedings Rc.T5/85053/81, dated 9.7.1983, determined the liability and the notional loss sustained the Government, as Rs.1,34,399.90 and after adjusting the earnest money deposit three months security deposit remitted by the writ petitioner, the balance of liability arrived at Rs.30,144.90 and that was sought to be recovered by the impugned proceedings from the writ petitioner. It is at this stage, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition quash the aforesaid impugned order.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the writ petitioner happened the highest bidder in the auction held for disposal of the Arrack Shop No.11 of Town, on 28.5.1981. However, that was not accepted by the respondents respondents took steps for reauction of the said shop. Having regard to the fact petitioner offered the highest bid and that his bid was not accepted, it is always open writ petitioner to question the said reauction on the ground as may be available with is in these circumstances, the writ petitioner has challenged the auction and also the interim stay. It cannot be said that as a result of the petitioner filing the writ challenging the reauction notice, the Government has totally sustained the loss absence of any steps that were taken by the respondent, enabling the shops to be the successful bidder. In reply, the learned Government Advocate represented that of the fact that the shop was not run by anybody the Government have sustained and that by virtue of Rule 21 of the Rules, 1981, the petitioner is liable for the notional sustained by the Government. Considering the relevant contentions, on the part sides, it is not in dispute that the petitioner happened to be the highest bidder in the held on 28.5.1981. However, the respondents did not accept the highest bid offered petitioner, but had taken steps to dispose of the shop by reauction. It is at this stage, writ petitioner had filed the W.P.No.3678 of 1981 to quash the said reauction proceedings and also obtained an interim stay of all further proceedings in W.M.P.No.5612 of 1981. in these circumstances, yet another fact has to be considered that even assuming writ petitioner has filed the above writ petition and obtained an interim stay of all proceedings, the respondents ought to have permitted the writ petitioner to run the granting licence in pursuance of the highest bid offered by the writ petitioner in auction held on 28.5.1981 or otherwise should have taken steps to vacate the stay enable the successful bidder in the reauction to run the shop. If the State Government taken proper steps at an appropriate time, there is no chance to sustain any notional the State Government. Having failed to take appropriate steps at relevant point of not fair on the part of the respondents to fix the responsibility on the petitioner entitled to invoke any remedy that is available under law in order to alleviate his if any, in regard to the reauction, by reason of the fact that he happened to be the bidder in the first auction held in respect of the shop in question. It is circumstances, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that the respondents have failed to take appropriate steps so as to enable the successful bidder in the auction to run the shop. It is in these circumstances, no liability can be fixed against petitioner by reason of the failure on the part of the respondents to take appropriate steps to vacate the stay order otherwise to enable the successful bidder to run the shop. In view of the above, impugned order is liable to be quashed and is accordingly quashed. Writ petition is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. No costs. Petition allowed.