M N RANGA RAO Vs. EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner assails the attachment order dated 29-05-1989 issued by the third respondent for the recovery of Rs. 6,37,902-60 being the excise arrears for the year 1988-89 on the ground that recovery is illegal and arbitrary.

(2.) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner was the successful bidder for Achugatlapalem, Pedapeta and Penumadam road arrack shops in the auction held in the year 1988. The petitioner also deposited the necessary amounts after acceptance of his bid as per the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right to sell Arrack in Retail) Rules, 1988. Therefore, licences were issued to him for carrying on the business by paying the privilege fees and issue prices etc. The petitioner has also given an undertaking in Form-IV counterpart agreement at the time of obtaining licences wherein it has been mentioned that the licensing authority shall redispose the shops in case the petitioner fails to pay in time the privilege fee, issue fee of arrack or other dues in the manner as specified in arrack rules. The allegation that when the petitioner did not pay the monthly privilege fee of the shops in question in two equal instalments even after service of a show-cause notice, the licence was cancelled under Rule 20 of the A.P. Excise Rules. Thereafter, the arrack shops were taken back from the petitioner and they were resold on 2-4-1989 by auction. The Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 calculated the resultant loss at Rs. 6,37, 902-60 as per the Rule 22(3) of the Arrack Rules and the Collector of Excise, West Godavari, Eluru, wrote to the concerned Mandal Revenue Officer to recover the said loss and the Mandal Revenue Officer, Palakol, attached the property of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that the auction held on 02-04-1989 was not in accordance with the Rules, because no proper publicity was given and low bids were accepted and therefore, he is not liable for the resultant loss. The respondent did not issue any notice before determining the alleged resultant loss to be recovered from him and therefore the attachment order is illegal and arbitrary, particularly because the Excise Authorities have not given any particulars in arriving the figure of Rs. 6,37,902-60 towards excise arrears.