RAM RATAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by an excise contractor Challenging the order, dated 22-12-1970 (Petitioner's Annexure p/1), passed by the Additional Tahsildar, Excise, Gwalior, and Recovery Officer, issuing notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs. 4,905/should not be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue towards the loss suffered by the Government in re-auctioning the licence for a liquor shop.

(2.) THE case had come up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, presided over by one of us (namely, Raina, J. and Dwivedi, J.), which by order, dated 22-3-1972 referred the entire case for decision by a Full Bench, as interpretation of Article 299 of the Constitution of India was involved, on which different opinions have been expressed in some cases. We, therefore, propose to dispose of the entire case as question has been referred to us by the division Bench for our opinion.

(3.) THE facts leading to the present writ petition are as follows. The Collector, gwalior. In February, or the year 1970, in which the petitioner was the highes8,000/-in respect of Bhana and a bid of Rs. 3,500/- in respect of Bhangghota. He signed the bid lists dated 14-2-1970 and the auction in his favour was finalised by the Collector accepting the bid as also by the district Excise Officer, as per the respondents' Annex. R/1. Thus, the total auction price was Rupees 11,500/ -. Thereafter the petitioner did not turn up and consequently the excise licence was re-auctioned on 28-3-1970 in favour of one radheahyam Sharma for a consideration of Rs. 6,600/ -. The petitioner was, therefore, given a notice to show cause as to why the balance of Rs. 4,900/-, which was the loss suffered in the re-auction and Rs. 5/- as miscellaneous expenses -- total Rupees 4,905/-, should not be recovered from him. The petitioner, instead of approaching the higher authorities of the Excise department has filed this writ petition for a Writ of certiorari, seeking to quash the order of the recovery Officer (Petitioner's Annexure A/1) and also a Writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of the alleged loss.