VEMA NARASIMHA RAO Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE KRISHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the application for the issue of a writ Sri M. Ramachandra Reddy, counsel for the petitioner relies upon a judgment of my brother Kuppuswamy J. in W P No. 420 of 72 and urges that it is not open to the Excise authorities to proceed to recover any amount in excess of the amount of call deposit. The decision of my brother does support him. The learned Government pleader, however, urges that the decision requires reconsideration. He submits that the view of the learned Judge that Rule 15 only provides for certain remedies in the case of default on the part of the contractor to life the minimum guaranteed quantity is not correct. He submits that the rule imposes a liability on the contractor not only to I'm the minimum guaranteed quantity but to pay the cost of the short drawn quantity of liquor. There seems to be some force i n the submission of the learned Government pleader. Having regard to the importance of the question I think it is desirable that the matter is heard by a Division Bench W. P. No. 1440 of 1972 is, therefore, directed to be posted before a Bench. Post W. P. No. 1435 of 1972 also along with W. P. No. 1440 of 1972. In pursuance of the Order of the Hon'ble Mr, Justice Chinnappa Reddy, dated 2S-9~l973,Writ petitions Nos. 1435,1440,1709 and 1720 of 1972 came before the Division Bench consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice Gopala Rao Ekbote, Chief Justice and the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chennakesav Reddy.

(2.) In view of the conflicting decisions brought to our notice, and since the question Involved is of great importance likely to affect several persons and in any case the Government, we think that an authoritative decision of the Full Bench should be giver. Post before a Full Bench.

(3.) In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench dated 12-12-1973 these petitions came on for final hearing before the Full Bench. Mr. K. Raghava Rao, advocate for the petitioners In W. P. Nos. 1435 and 1614 of 1972. Mr. M. Ramachandra Reddy, advocate for the petitioners in W P No. 1440, 170 and 1720 of 1972. Mr. A. Surya Rao, advocate for the petitioner inW.P.No.946 of 1972. Mr. M. Rajasekhara Reddy. advocate for the petitioner in W P No. 2316 of 1972. Mr. P. Ramakotl advocate for the petitioner in W P No. 2865 of 72 Mr. D. V. Reddi Pantulu advocate for the petitioner in W P No. 3072 of 72 Mr. M. Krishnamachari, advocate for the petitioner in W P No. 1250 of 72..