HARI OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 24-3-1984 we dismissed this writ petition by a short order. We now proceed to give our reasons.

(2.) THE petitioners, who, in previous years, held, as they say, licence to carry on business as excise contractors, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the directions issued by the Excise Commissioner to all the District Magistrates that a person inspite of authorisation by a duly executed power of attorney, should not be permitted to offer any bid on behalf of another at the excise auctions proposed to be held for the ensuing year 1984-85.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has contended that under the old Excise Rules (Paragraph 373) there was a complete prohibition on a person offering bid on behalf of another but the prohibition was not to apply to a person who held valid power of attorney on behalf of that other person and, therefore, it was possible for one person to offer his bids at different excise auctions through his agents. This right to participate in the excise auctions has been seriously affected by the communication issued by the Excise Commissioner to the District Magistrates by which an agent has been completely prohibited from offering a bid on behalf of his principal inspite of the agent being duly authorised by a valid power of attorney. The right to participate in the auction, it is contended, cannot be destroyed by executive instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner.