ENAMALA NAGI REDDY Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions can be disposed of by a common order. The petitioner is common.

(2.) For the excise year 1984-85 (1-10-1984 to 30-9-85) the petitioner was the highest bidder for Ananthapur group of arrack shops on a monthly rental of Rs.11,36,512.26 Ps. His bid was accepted. He executed the agreement and made the requisite deposit. The minimum guaranteed quantity of arrack was 3,50,000 bulk liters. He commenced the business in October 1984. On the ground of non-payment of rental for the month of January 1985, his licence was cancelled on 28-2-85. Indeed, by that date,he had not even paid the rental for February, 1985. Having cancelled the petitioner's licence, the administration of shops was taken over by the department on 1-3-1985, and re-auction of the group of shops was notified to be held on 13-3-1985. On 13-3-1985 the auction was adjourned,to and was held on 20-4-1985. On this date, the highest bid received was in a sum of Rs.6,75.000/-. This bid was, however,not confirmed by the Collector, with the result that another auction was held on 1-5-1985. No bid was accepted on that date, and the auction was adjourned to 6-5-85. On that date, the highest bid in a sum of Rs.7,30,000/- was accepted.

(3.) W.P. No.4350/1985 was filed on 29-4-1985 questioning the re-auction proposed to be held on 1-5-1985. The writ petition was admitted but stay was refused. After the reauction was held on 6-5-1985, the second writ petition, i.e., W.P.No. 4654/85, was filed on 13-5-1985. In this writ petition too, stay of re-auction was asked for, but was refused by a Bench of this Court, of which one of us (M.Jagannadha Rao, J.) was a member. Against the order refusing to grant stay, the petitioner went to Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court by its order dated 9-7-1985, while declining to grant stay, provided for certain safeguards in the event of the petitioner's success in these writ petitions. It is unnecessary to refer to the directions given by the SuprimCourt for the purpose of the present writ petitions. Having conducted the re-auction, the government called upon the petitioner to pay the difference of monthly rentals for the remaining five months, said to be the loss suffered by the Government.