E RAMAPPA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition gives rise to a short question of law relating to the scope and application of Rules 16 and 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to sell liquor in retail) Rules, 1979 hereinafter called "the rules").

(2.) In the writ petition, it is averred that on account of the prevalence of illicit distillation and sale of arrack in and around Kanakaveedu village in the district of Kurnool, nobody was prepared to offer his tender or bid in respect of Kanakaveedu arrack shop for the year 1970-71. In spite of the assurance by the Excise authorities of all possible assistance to enable the auction purchaser to sell arrack and to put down illicit distillation and sale of arrack in that area. The petitioner, much against his will was induced by the Excise authorities on 15-10-1970 to sign the register kept under rule 15, as the highest bidder. The petitioner neither deposited the requisite earnest money and one month "?s rental on that day as required by rule 16 nor paid the further amounts required to be paid under Rule 18 and 19. On 9-11-70, he issued a registered notice to the District Collector, Deputy Commissioner of Excise and the Superintendent of Excise, Kurnool and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Adoni, stating that he was forced to take the excise contract of the arrack shop and made to enter into an agreement under an assurance by the Excise authorities to protect him and clear off the illicit distillation of arrack in Kanakaveedu, that the departmental authorities did not take any pains to raid the village and seize the illicitly distilled arrack and stop sale by bootleggers named therein and that he apprehended danger to his life if he would sell arrack at Kanakaveedu, and therefore praying for cancellation of the agreement entered into by him and to take steps to re-auction the shop. As he did not receive any reply or communication from the Excise authorities till the expiry of that excise year, he was under the bona-fide impression that he was relieved of all the liability relating to the auction of the arrack shop. But to his surprise, he received a demand notice from the Tahsildar, Adoni dated 7-12-1970 for a sum of Rs. 2,468/- towards the loss said to have been caused by him to the Government. Subsequently on 13-12-1970, his property was attached pursuant to the recovery proceedings. Hence, he approached this Court on 18-12-1972 for the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to proceed with the recovery of the amount demanded by the Tahsildar from him as arrears of land Revenue.

(3.) In the counter filed by the Excise Superintendent, Kurnool, it is stated that the petitioner participated in the open auction at his own free will and became the highest bidder on 15-10-1970 in respect of the arrack shop at Kanakaveedu and signed in the register as per rule 15, but thereafter failed to deposit the requisite amounts under rule 16, 18 and 19 and obtained a licence. In paragraph a, it is stated that "the issue of notice by the petitioner is not known to me". The shop could not be re auctioned during in I lease year and the department has permitted the petitioner to participate in the auctions for the subsequent year by oversight although he was in arrears of the demanded amount. The demand, therefore, was said to be valid and enforceable.