E NARSIMHA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF PROHIBITION AND EXICISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since common questions of fact and law arise for consideration, these three writ petitions are heard together and decided by this common order.

(2.) The District Collector and the Auctioning Authority, Nalgonda (Respondent No.3 in all the writ petitions) issued Notification dated 27-5-2006 under Rule 5 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right of Selling by Shop and Conditions of Licence) Rules, 2005 (for short, 'the Rules') inviting sealed tenders for grant of lease of right for the sale of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor by shop in Nalgonda district for the lease period from 1-7-2006 to 30-6-2008. The said auction notice includes the shops in Chityal town, Nalgonda Mandal. The petitioners herein submitted their tenders for the shops in Chityal namely Shop No.l (Ward No.8), Shop No.5 (Ward No.l) and Shop No.3 (Ward No.9) respectively. As per the notification, the upset prices for the above said three shops were fixed as Rs.15,98,921/-, Rs.14,65,411/- and Rs. 14,00,665/- respectively. The tenders were opened on 3-6-2006 by the third respondent and it is not in dispute that the three petitioners herein who had offered Rs.20,20,200/-, Rs.19,99,999/- and Rs. 18,99,999/- in respect of the Shop Nos.l, 3 and 5 respectively were found to be the highest bidders. It is pleaded that the petitioners'were ready and willing to fulfill all the terms and conditions of the auction notice. The grievance of the petitioners is that in spite of the fact that they were found to be the highest bidders, the respondents did not accept their tenders and on the other hand they were contemplating to issue a fresh notification of public auction in respect of the three shops in question. Hence, these writ petitions seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to enter into a lease agreement with them for the period 2006-08 in respect of Shop Nos.l, 3 and 5 of Chityal respectively contending that the respondents are duty bound to enter into lease agreement with them for the period 2006-08 since they were admittedly the highest bidders.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as per clauses ix, xiv and xv of the Auction Conditions appended to the notification dated 27-5-2006, Auctioning Authority is bound to accept the highest tenders and such highest tenders can be rejected only after recording the reasons for such rejection and communicating such order to the highest bidder. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that since no such procedure was followed, it is not open to the respondents to issue any fresh notification ignoring the highest bids made by the petitioners.