SAROJ DEVI Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the proceedings for realisation of Rs. 39,330/- as arrears of land revenue from the petitioners.

(2.) THE necessary facts for decision of the writ petition are as under : THE petitioners were highest bidder for a foreign liquor shop of Nigha- san Road, district Lakhimpur Kheri for the year 1980-81. F. L 5 licence was settled with the petitioners for a licence fee of Rs 1,52,000/- being the highest bid for the aforesaid shop. In accordance with Rule 373 (6) of the Excise Manual, the petitioners deposited the l/4th of the annual licence fee i.e., an amount of Rs. 38 000/- immediately. THEreafter the petitioners were granted the provisional licence subject to approval of the Excise Commissioner as required under Rule 373 (2) of the Manual. THE petitioners' contention is that the petitioners' bid was never accepted by the Excise Commissioner, that the petitioners were permitted to run F. L. 5 licence on provisional basis. It seems that the petitioners failed to pay the monthly instalments of the licence fee Consequent thereupon, the petitioners' licence was cancelled on 4th November, 1980. On petitioners' licence having been cancelled in the midst of the licensing year, Nighasan Road shop was put to re-auction on 17th November, 1980. On re-auction, one Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma offered a bid of Rs. 52,500/- as highest bid for the remaining licensing period. THE second highest bid was of one Sri Raj Narain. That was for an amount of Rs. 52,000/-. Both the aforesaid persons were fully qualified for being granted the licence. THE had solvency certificate to participate in the auction. THE necessary requirement of Rule 373 (5) and (6) of the Excise Manual for settling the shop with the aforesaid Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma and Sri Raj Narain was also got completed and the signatures of the highest and next highest bidders were also taken on the bid sheet.

(3.) THE petitioners have made two submissions for challenging the aforesaid recovery. THE first submission is that since there was no concluded 206 Saroj Devi v. Excise Commissioner (R. B. Merotra, J.) [ 1991 contract between the petitioners and the State Government and the petitioners were only running the shop on a provisional licence basis, the short fall in the auction money could not have been recovered as arrears of land revenue, the State Government could have recovered the same only by way of suit. THE second submission of the petitioners is that there was absolutely no justification for the Commissioner in not accepting the highest bid of Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, in the first re-auction for an amount of Rs. 52,500/-. THE petitioners had already deposited the short fall in the auction money on the basis of the first re-auction of the shop. THE petitioners cannot be held responsible for the short fall of the auction money for the second re- auction as the Commissioner had no justification for not accepting the highest bid of Rs. 52,500/- in the first re-auction and thereafter accepting the bid only of Rs 24,000/- in the second re-auction. THE said action of the Commissioner is wholly arbitrary as such the petitioners cannot be held responsible for the short fall in the second auction.