G SIVANNA Vs. COMMISSIONER FOR PROHIBITION AND EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed by G. Sivanna assailing the order passed in CR. No. 8421/2010/CPE/M4, dated 10.6.2010 passed by the Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad-1st respondent.

(2.) The District Collector and Auctioning Authority, Kurnool District-2nd respondent issued notification in District Gazette, Kurnool dated 27.05.2010 inviting tenders for the lease of right of selling of Indian made foreign liquor and foreign liquor by shop under Rule 5 of Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for brevity, "Rules 2005"). The petitioner and N. Triveni-4th respondent and four others submitted tenders in respect of G.SI. No .28, i.e., shop at Adoni, Kurnool District. The tenders were opened on 7.6.2010 and the 4th respondent became the highest bidder having offered Rs. 1,11,99,000/-. At the time of opening sealed tenders, the 4th respondent remained absent. Therefore, the petitioner being 2nd highest bidder having offered Rs. 1,00,08,000/-has been declared as successful tenderer. The petitioner deposited 1/6th of the bid amount. His signature has been obtained in the register maintained under Rule 16 of the Rules 2005. The 4th respondent made a representation dated 08.6.2010 to the 2nd respondent stating that she could not reach the auction hall in time and that there was no proper loud speaker system and that she being the highest tenderer, A-4 shop shall be allotted to her. The 2nd respondent forwarded the representation of the 4th respondent to the Commissioner for Prohibition and Excise-1st respondent. The petitioner on coming to know that representation of the 4th respondent has been forwarded to the 1st respondent for consideration, he too made a representation to the 1st respondent claiming allotment of the shop in his favour since he has been declared as the successful tenderer. The 1st respondent heard the petitioner and the 4th respondent and clarified that the 4th respondent is to be declared as successful tenderer and accordingly issued proceeding Cr. No. 8421/2010/CPE/M4 dated 10.6.2010. Assailing the said proceeding, the petitioner has filed this writ petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For better understanding of the grievance of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to refer paras 6 and 7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, which read as hereunder:

(3.) Rule nisi came to be issued on 15.6.2010. An interim order keeping the proceedings issued by the 1st respondent in suspension, came to be passed on the even date, vide W.P.M.P. No. 16871 of 2010.