SRI. KAJAL CHANDRA DAS Vs. THE STATE OF TRIPURA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA, THE COLLECTOR EXCISE AND SRI. SUJIT CHAKRABORTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that a writ be issued whereby the tender submitted by respondent no. 4 be declared to be informal and the tender of the present petitioner which is the second highest bid, be accepted and the licence for retail vend of Ambassa foreign liquor shop No. 1 for the excise year 2014 -2015 be issued in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the State of Tripura published a notice inviting tenders which was published in various newspapers including the Tripura Gazette on 24th January, 2014. Tenders were invited for grant of licence of various foreign liquor shops including the foreign liquor shop no. 1 at Ambassa. The Minimum Reserve Fee (MRF) for the financial year 2014 -2015 for this shop was fixed at Rs. 8,95,997/ -. Tenders were submitted and respondent no. 4 submitted the highest tender. However, the premises which he offered for setting up the liquor shop were not found to be suitable and, therefore, he was asked to submit an alternative location vide letter dated 25.02.2014. The respondent No. 4 submitted that he was already running a shop at this very location and, therefore, the same location may be approved.

(3.) WE are, therefore, concerned only with Rule 26 which relates to grant of licence for liquor shops which would naturally means liquor shops in which consumption of liquor is not allowed on the premises. If we go through the three principles laid down in Rule 26, we find that the principles are extremely vague and can be interpreted in any manner.