S. RAMACHANDRAIAH Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution, for the issue of a writ of mandamus (1) directing the State of Andhra Pradesh to cancel the licence under the Excise Act granted by them in favour of the 2nd respondent; and (2) to recognise the petitioner as the highest bidder.

(2.) The facts which have given rise to this writ petition may be briefly stated. On the 4th September 1957, the Deputy Excise Commissioner, Hyderabad auctioned the right to vend liquor at the Tandur Sendhi group liquor shops for the year 1957-58. The 2nd respondent and his brother submitted a joint tender for Rs. 15,675/-. The petitioner submitted his tender for Rs. 14,567/-. The highest tender, being that of the 2nd respondent and his brother, it was accepted by the auctioning authority. On the same date, the 2nd respondent and his brother deposited Government promissory notes of the value of Rs. 30000/- as security and two percent of the actual rental in cash. There was an objection by the petitioner that the 2nd respondent's brother, Yelliah was a defaulter for more than three years and hence their joint tender should not be accepted. On the 19th September 1957, Yelliah filed an application before the auctioning authority requesting him to grant him permission to withdraw from the tender. The 2nd respondent gave his assent to this proposal which was eventually accepted by the auctioning authority on the 26th September 1937. On the same day a licence was issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. The petitioner persisted in his protests against the acceptance of the tender by the Deputy Commissioner. Against the acceptance of the 2nd respondent's tender and the issuing of a licence in his favour, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Excise Commissioner who happens to be one of the members of the Board of Revenue. Before the Excise Commissioner, the parties were represented by advocates, and after hearing them, the Commissioner passed an order on the 5th October 1957, confirming the grant of the licence in favour of the 2nd respondent.

(3.) Under Rule 4 of the Abkari Appeal and Revision Rules, of 1955, it is open to the Government to call for and examine the record of any case which has been decided by any subordinate authority if the subordinate authority appears (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law; (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested; or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, and make such order in the case as they think fit. It is common ground that the petitioner has not invoked this revisional jurisdiction vested in the Government. For the purpose of the present discussion, I shall assume that the failure of the petitioner to invoke this jurisdiction would not debar him from seeking relief under Article 226.