VEERABHADRA RAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was one of the bidders at the excise auction conducted on 5-9-1978 in respect of Pithapuram group of arrack shops. The 4th respondent was the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 1,22,200-22 Ps (Monthly rental). According to the petition he was the next highest bidder. (He has not, however, stated what was his bid amount.)

(2.) The 4th respondent being the highest bidder and her bid having been accepted, she had to deposit one month's rental plus 2 percent of the annual rental by way of earnest money, i.e., a total amount of Rs. 1,51, 529-22 Ps, on the same day. She, however, deposited a sum of Rs. 1,41,000/- on the same day, and the balance amount, i.e., Rs. 10,529-22 Ps, on 8-9-1978. On 8-9-1978 the petitioner submitted a petition before the Excise Superintendent requesting him to conduct a re-auction, in view of the non-compliance of Rule 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), on the part of the 4th respondent. No action appears to have been taken on that petition. On the contrary, the excise authorities accepted further amounts, within the meaning of Rules 18 and 19 of the Rules, from the 4th respondent and proposed to issue a licence in her favour. In those circumstances, the present writ petition was filed on 22-9-1978, and an interim order obtained staying the grant of licence to the 4th respondent. Subsequently, however, on the 4th respondent applying for vacating the interim stay, I had vacated the same.

(3.) Mr. T. Ananta Babu, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that Rule 16 is mandatory. Since in this case there is an admitted non-compliance of the said Rule, this Court must issue a writ of mandamus directing the Excise authorities to conduct a re-auction.