RAJ KUMAR Vs. COLLECTOR MUZAFFARNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions arise out of a common matter. The parties are represented by common counsel. Therefore, they were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) In Writ Petition No. 497 of 1985, the petitioner is Raj Kumar who was the highest bidder in the auction of a licence for bhang for the year 1984-85 in respect of the Shamli bhang shop in district Muzaffanagar. His bid was for a sum of Rs. 1.86.000 and according to the terms of auction. he was required to pay l/6th of the bid money on the fall of the hammer which he did on the date of the auction, i.e., the 26th March. 1984. On the 4th April, 1984, he deposited another sum of Rs. 15,500 as security. In the same month, he deposited Rs. 15,500 towards licence fee. Another sum of Rs. 15.500 is claimed to have been deposited on 31st May. 1984 as licence fee for the month of May, 1984. According to the petitioner, the licence fee had to be deposited in advance by 20th of the month. For the month of June, 1984, the petitioner could not deposit the licence fee by the specified date, i.e., 20th June. 1984. Due to this default, the licence was cancelled on 30th June, 1984. The petitioner further claims that from 1st April, 1984 to 27th May, 1984, no bhang was supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, made an application for remission of the licence fee which is still pending even though. licence had already been cancelled on 30th June, 1984. The Excise Commissioner accepted the petitioner's bid on the 4th June. 1985. The shop was settled on the basis of daily licence fee for the period 3rd July to 12th July. 1984. The shop was re-auctioned on 12th July, 1984 for a sum of Rs. 72,000 resulting in shortfall of Rs. 35.600. The Collector, Muzaffarnagar is said to have sent a letter to the Collector, Ghaziabad for the recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue without Issuing any notice to the petitioner. The Collector. Ghaziabad was alleged to be pressing for depositing the amount. The petitioner's contention is that the bhang was not available at the Government depot and, therefore, it could not be supplied to the petitioner during the aforesaid period and the petitioner is entitled to a remission of the licence fee. The petitioner also claims that he had paid licence fee for three months and the respondents could adjust the licence fee for a period of one month only and therefore, he is entitled for a refund of Rs. 31.000. The petitioner claims that since the bid was not accepted by the Excise Commissioner upto 30th June, 1984 when the licence was cancelled, there was no concluded contract between him and the respondents and, therefore, he is not liable for short-fall in the sale consideration for the licence. This petitioner, therefore, prayed for a direction in the nature of certtorart for quashing the order dated 30th May, 1985 issued by the Collector, Muzaffarnagar and a direction to him to refund the amount of Rs. 31,000 and a further mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed against the petitioner for recovery of the sum of Rs. 35,600.

(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed. Their case is that in pursuance of the licence granted to the petitioner, he ran the shop for some time and the petitioner deposited the monthly sums but for the month of June. 1984, the same was not deposited which was made good from the security amount and the petitioner was asked to make up the resultant deficiency in the security amount. Since the petitioner failed to comply, his licence was cancelled on 30th June, 1984. Thereafter, there was a re-auction resulting in a shortfall which the petitioner is bound to make good as it was on account of the breach of contract by him that the State suffered the loss. It is claimed that the acceptance of the bid by the Commissioner was only a routine of a formal matter and did not affect the validity of the contract.