SHRIMATI NANHIBAI Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case prays for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the opponents to treat the bid offered by her in the sum of Rs. 85,000/-at the auction sale of Gorakhpur liquor shop (located in Jabalpur) held on 27th February 1963 for the year commencing on 1st April 1963, as final and binding under the madhya Pradesh Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the rules thereunder. She has also sought a direction restraining the opponents from re-auctioning the liquor shop.

(2.) THE facts are, that the said shop is for the retail sale of country spirit. The equivalent Citation: auction of the privilege of selling country liquor at the shop was conducted by the collector, Jabalpur, on 27th February 1963. The petitioner, who held the privilege of the sale of country liquor at the shop for the year ending on 31st March 1963 and was given a licence for that purpose, offered a bid in the sum of Rs. 85,000/ -. She was declared the highest bidder. The petitioner says that after the acceptance of her bid by the Collector she furnished the requisite security for due performance of the contract concluded by the acceptance of her bid at the auction. On 25th march 1963 the District Excise Officer, Jabalpur, informed the applicant by a letter that the bid of Rs. 85,000/- offered by her had not been accepted by the Excise commissioner and that the shop would be put to '"auction" again on 29th March 1963 at 12 noon. The next day after the receipt of this communication the applicant filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution claiming redress for her grievances that the opponents were not justified in not treating the bid offered by her at the auction sale held on 27th February 1963 and accepted by the Collector as final and binding and in directing a re-sale of the shop. On the admission of this petition, the applicant made a prayer for an interim direction restraining the opponents from holding the auction sale fixed for 29th March 1963, which was granted by us. The interim stay order made by us on 27th March. 1963 was, however, vacated by us after the conclusion of arguments at the final hearing of this matter.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that under the Act and the rules framed thereunder, the collector is the sole competent authority who can in his discretion accept, reject or confirm any bid made at an auction; that Rule IV of the 'rules of general application framed under Section 62 (2) (e), (f) and (b) of the Act expressly provides that the "confirmation of any auction sale, whether held by the Collector himself or by any other officer, shall rest with the Collector, who may accept or reject any bid at his discretion without assigning any cause", that under the Act and the rules a bid accep'ed by the collector does not require any confirmation by the Excise Commissioner; and that, therefore, the bid offered by her and accepted by the Collector should have been regarded as final and binding. The petitioner does not dispute that the conditions of the auction, which were notified, contained a term to the effect that the auction held by the Collector or by any other officer of any shop in respect of which a 'licence fee' exceeding Rs. 30,000/- was obtained in the year 1962-63 or for which a bid exceeding that amount has been offered for the next year, that is, for 1963-64, would be "subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner". Her contention is that this condition is repugnant to Rule IV referred to earlier and is ultra vires the act and the rules framed thereunder.