G PEDDA RAHIM KHAN JAMAL KHAN ATMAKUR NANDYAL TALUK KURNOOL DISTRICT Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner participated in the auction to vend arrack in retail for the year 1970-71 in respect of the shop situate at Bandi Atmakur, Nandyal Taluk, Kurnool. District. He was the highest bidder for a monthly rental of Rs. 875. He deposited one month's rental i.e., Rs. 875 and earnest money of Rs. 21o, on gth November, 1970. He deposited a further sum of Rs. 1,750 being two months rental on 5th December, 1970. No licence was granted to him to sell arrack. According to him, he made representations to refund the amounts deposited by him as he was not given a licence. But no amount was refunded to him. The Tahsidar, Nandyal, however, got the petitioner's properties attached for the realisation of a sum of Rs. 10,500 said to be due from him being the rent for the excise year 1970-71. He thereupon filed this writ petition praying for the issue of a writ or order declaring that the action of the excise authorities in proceeding to realise the annual rental of Rs. 10,500 is illegal and restraining them from proceeding further in pursuance of the notice dated, 27th June, 1972 asking him to pay that amount. It was also prayed that the respondents may be directed to refund the amount of Rs. 2,835 deposited by the petitioner.

(2.) The main contention that is raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there is no concluded contract between the petitioner and the Government in respect of the arrack shop, and hence the Government is not entitled to realise the rent alleged to be due for the year from the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner did not make any declaration in form A-1 as required by rule 5 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to sell liquor in retail) Rules, 1969 (referred to in this judgment as the Rules) and no hall ticket was issued to him. He was not therefore entitled to participate in the auction and any bid made by him was contrary to the Rules and could not be accepted by the Authorities. It is further stated that the petitioner did not deposit 2 % of the annual rental as earnest money together with one month's rental on the day of the auction immediately after the acceptance of the bid as required under rule 16 but deposited that rent on 9th November, 1970. It is also submitted that he did not deposit two months' rental within 15 days from the date of auction as required by rule 18. Further no counterpart agreement was executed by him as provided in rule 21. For all these reasons, it is submitted, that there is no valid contract and there is no lease for the sale of liquor which could take effect under rule 22. The only right of the respondents is to re-auction the lease. They are not entitled to recover any amounts said to be due under the lease.

(3.) It is brought to my notice that on the petitioner failing to comply with the requirements of the Rules, the shop was re-auctioned on 25th February, 1971 but there were no bidders. Hence the authorities were constrained to recover the entire lease amount from the petitioner and take the impugned proceedings. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that as soon as the highest bid of the petitioner was accepted at the auction, there was a valid contract and the authorities were entitled to recover the sum of Rs. 10,500 being the 12 months' rental due under the contract.