LAWS(ALL)-1992-1-25

SUNIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

Decided On January 17, 1992
SUNIL KUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF U P Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A preliminary point was raised by the Respondents regarding the maintainability of the petition.

(2.) THE fact, in short, may be briefly stated. 21 excise shops of country spirit of Bisalpar, District Pilibhit were put to auction on 7 -3 -1991 for the excise year 1991 -92. The Petitioners who are 14 in number offered the highest bid of Rs. 91,05.000 and were required to deposit half of the security amount as envisaged in Rule 20(1)(i) of the U.P. Excise Licences (Tender cum auction) Rules, 1991. The claim of the Petitioners is that the auction was over at 6.00 p.m. and they delivered Bank draft of Rs. 94,0000/ - at 11.30 p.m. to the Excise Inspector. A First information report was lodged by the District Excise Officer, Pilibhit against the Petitioners that the bidders did not deposit the security amount of the auction. However, the Excise Inspector handed over the Bank draft on 8 -3 -1991 to the District Excise Officer. The Excise Commissioner accepted G -12 statement of the bid of the Petitioners on 1 -5 -1991. The Respondent No. 4 who had offered the second highest bid challenged the approval of the Excise Commissioner before the State Government. On reference made by the State Government to the Excise Commissioner, the application of Respondent No. 4 was rejected on 30 -3 191, upholding the order accepting the bid in favour of the Petitioners. The Respondent again challenged the order dated 30 -3 -199 before the State Government and the State Government passed an exparte order directing the Excise Commissioner not to accord final sanction. However, the Excise Commissioner, by an order dated 1 -5 -1991 accepted form 12A in respect of the aforesaid auction subject to the result of the proceedings before the State Government initiated by the Respondent No. 2. It was made clear that in case the application is allowed, the auction would stand automatically cancelled. The State Government ultimately, by an order dated 10 -12 -1991, cancelled the auction dated 7 -3 -1991, and directed for reduction of 21 country spirit shops of Bisalpur. It may be stated that the Petitioners operated the licence during this period. At this stage the 14 Petitioners who were excise licencees presented the present writ petition No. 1588 of 1991 before the Stamp Reporter and thereafter filed it before the Joint Registrar on 18 -12 -1991 which came up for consideration on 19 -12 -1991. Simultaneously another writ petition challenging the same order of the State Government dated 10 -12 -1991 was presented for reporting before the Stamp report Lucknow Bench on 17 -12 -1991 by 7 Petitioners out of the aforesaid 14 and the Petitioners reported as cognizable by a Division Bench. This petition also came up for consideration on 19 -12 -1991. On 19 -12 -1991 this petition was got dismissed by a Division Bench by the following order:

(3.) ANOTHER petition by the same 14 Petitioners by the same counsel was filed during vacations on 27 -12 -1991 and a Bench of Hon'ble K.K. Birla and Hon'ble B.P. Singh, JJ was nominated. Copy of this petition was given to the learned standing counsel who accepted notices for Respondents 1, 2 and 3. An application was alleged to have been filed by Respondent No. 4 with the prayer that information be given about the hearing of the petition which he apprehended to be filed against the order dated 10 -12 -1991 and he may be given an opportunity of hearing before the petition is entertained. It appears that no orders were passed on this application. In this petition, the Petitioners had alleged that in view of the directions made in the order dated 10 -12 -1991 cancelling the auction dated 7 -3 -1991, the Respondents are going to hold fresh auction on 30 -12 -1991 without proper publicity and as such prayed for the quashing of the advertisement dated 26 -12 -1991 as also for necessary direction commanding the Respondent No. 3 not to put 21 country spirit shops of Bisalpur to reduction in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26 -12 -1991. The Division Bench passed the following order on 28 -12 -1991.