SATHIYA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EXCISE), AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The arrack licensees of Puducherry, who are in arrears appears to be inventing novel methods to avoid payment. The background facts of these writ petitions show that the Excise Department, Puducherry is equally capable to introduce new devices to collect the arrears from the revenue defaulters.

(2.) The petitioner challenges the re-auction notification issued by the Excise Department, Puducherry on the ground that she has fulfilled all the conditions of the confirmation order issued in her favour with respect to the Arrack Shops bearing Nos.4(O), Karuvadikuppam and 3(O), Pillaichavady.

(3.) The Government issued a notification dated 3 June 2013 for granting lease of arrack shops in various areas in the Union Territory of Puducherry for the period from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014. The petitioner participated in the said auction. The bid submitted by the petitioner for the arrack shop No.4(O), Karuvadikuppam, Oulgarpet Municipality was the highest. The respondent provisionally accepted the bid and issued an order dated 30.06.2013 informing the petitioner that her bid has been provisionally accepted, subject to confirmation by the Government. The petitioner was permitted to run the arrack shop, pending such confirmation from 01.07.2013 to 30.06.2014 on the terms and conditions prescribed under the notification. Subsequently, the respondent issued the confirmation order dated 03.07.2013 whereby and where under the bid submitted by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.9,01,000/- per month was accepted. She was permitted to run the arrack shop bearing No.4(O), Karuvadikuppam. The petitioner complied with all the terms and conditions of the confirmation order. She was also given confirmation with respect to another arrack shop bearing Nos.3(O), Pillaichavady for a monthly bid amount of Rs.4,50,795/-. The petitioner has been running both the arrack shops from 01.07.2013.