JANARDAN PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner, an unsuccessful bidder, seeking cancellation of the order of re-auction by the Excise Commissioner.

(2.) THE Excise Commissioner issued an auction notice on 30-12-1987 for the sale of privilege to vend country liquor of various groups within the State, including 32 shops of the Sarangarh group in Raigarh district. The auction for Sarangarh group was held on 8/9th February 1988. In the auction held by the Collector, the petitioner's bid of Rs. 33,01,000/- which was the highest, was provisionally accepted. Since the bid amount was over 15,00,000/-, the bid was subject to acceptance by the Excise commissioner. Under clause 6 it was open to the Excise Commissioner to reject any offer without disclosing any reason. Under clause 12, an unsuccessful bidder had then option to make an application to the Collector for re-auction within 3 days, provided he gave an offer of value of 10 per cent higher than the highest bid given in the auction and deposited l/3rd of the offered bid. On receiving such an application, the Collector was required to re-auction the shops within 7 days. Respondent No. . 4 made applications on 16-3-1988 and 22-3-1988 before the Hon'ble Minister for Excise, which were forwarded to the Excise Commissioner, enclosing a draft of Rs. 5,70,000/- with an undertaking to deposit the balance of Rs. 6,41,000/- before the re-auction. By order dated 23-3-1988, the Excise Commissioner directed the Collector to re-auction the shops, directing respondent No. 4 to deposit l/3rd of the bid amount by 24-3-1988. Accordingly, the Collector fixed re-auction on 6-4-1988. However, on 30-3-1988, the excise Commissioner rejected the bid of the petitioner and directed re-auction. The present petition was filed on 1-4-1988 by the petitioner and in the meanwhile the auction to be held on 6-4-1988 was stayed.

(3.) THE petitioner's case is that his bid being the highest and having been provisionally accepted by the Collector and forwarded to the Excise Commissioner for his approval, there could be an order of re-auction only under clause 12. 'since respondent No. 4 was not a bidder in the auction, he could not have applied for re-auction. Besides, such an application had to be made within 3 days of the auction, by depositing l/3rd of the bid amount Neither the application was made within 3 days, nor the l/3rd bid amount was deposited by respondent No. 4. Therefore, the Excise commissioner erred in ordering re-auction on his application on 23-3-1988. According to the respondents, since the petitioner's bid has not been accepted, the petitioner can have no grievance for re-auction, since he is also entitled to participate in re-auction. The dispute arises out of contractual obligations and a writ is not the appropriate remedy. Besides, it was open to the Excise Commissioner under clause 6 d the tender notice to reject any bid without disclosing any reason and order re-auction. In the present case, the Excise Commissioner, by order dated 30-3-1988 found that the bid of the petitioner was inadequate and, therefore, has ordered re-auction in the interest of public revenue. The petitioner is only seeking quashing of re-auctioning of the shops and not quashing of the impugned order of the Excise Commissioner, dated 30-3-1988.