RAMNIVAS AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the settlement of the Bissam -Cuttack country liquor (Out Still) shop in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu opposite party No. 7.

(2.) THE relevant facts briefly are that a sale notice was issued on 1.7.2002 by the Superintendent of Excise, Rayagada pursuant to the direction of the Collector, Rayagada for sale of different country liquor (Out Still) shops in the district of Rayagada including Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop for the remaining period of the year 2002 -2003 by way of public auction followed by negotiation on 17.7.2002 at 10.00 A.M. in the Conference Hall of the Collectorate at Rayagada. The said sale notice stipulated, inter alia, that intending bidders will furnish solvency certificate and no -due certificate relating to area of excise revenue amongst other documents which shall be verified by the Superintendent of Excise, Rayagada on 15.7.2002 between 10.00 A.M. to 5.00 P.M. in presence of the intending bidder or their agents legally authorised by them for the purpose. The petitioners case in the writ petition as well as the rejoinder -affidavit is that he furnished the solvency certificate issued by the Sub -Collector, Patnagarh certifying that the petitioner is solvent to the extent of Rs. 10 lakhs as also the no -due certificate of his shops in Bolangir District and thereafter deposited a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - for issue of a Hall Ticket for the auction on 17.7.2002 and the Hall Ticket was issued to him and when the Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop was put to auction, the petitioner initially bid Rs. 50,000/ - and thereafter gave his final offer of Rs. 1 lakh for the said shop, but the A.D.M. who was the Presiding Officer for the auction ignored the said highest offer of the petitioner and settled the Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop along with Gudari O.S. shop with Shri Sanjay Sahu for a sum of Rs. 65,000/ - on 17.7.2002. The petitioner has filed this writ petition on 25.7.2002 praying for quashing the settlement of the said Bissam -Cuttack O.S.shop in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu and for settlement of the said shop in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) AT the hearing, Mr. Bijan Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently submitted that the petitioner had submitted all documents including a solvency certificate and no -due certificate and the Superintendent of Excise, Rayagada after being satisfied that the requisite documents had been furnished by the petitioner issued a Hall Ticket on payment of a sum of Rs. 1,000/ - by the petitioner so that the petitioner could participate in the auction and at the auction the petitioner did participate initially bidding an amount of Rs. 50,000/ - and raising his bid to Rs. 1 lakh, but the bid of the petitioner was not accepted and instead, the Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop together with another O.S. shop at Gudari was settled only for a sum of Rs. 65,000/ - in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu. Mr. Ray submitted that the Court should not now accept the false story given out by the authorities in the counter -affidavit that the Hall Ticket was issued to the petitioner for participation in auction due to over -sight and mistake and that the petitioner actually was making his bid from outside the Hall. According to Mr. Ray, this story now given by the authorities in their counter -affidavit is an after -thought meant to cover up their arbitrary and mala fide action in making the settlement of the Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop along with another O.S. shop at Gudari in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu at a low price of Rs. 65,000/ -. Mr. Ray cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmanasami Gounder v. C.I.T., Selvamani and others, 1992 (1) SCC 91, wherein it has been held that the dealing of the authorities in a public auction should be free from suspicion and should be free from bias, favouritism, neopotism, etc. He also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in K. N. Guruswamy v. The State of Mysore and others, AIR 1954 SC 592, for the proposition that State revenue cannot be dealt with arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office. He also cited the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa and others v. Harinarayan Jaiswal and others, AIR 1972 SC 1816, in which the Supreme Court has held that the purpose of public actions held under Sections 22 and 29 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 is to get the highest possible price because raising of revenue is one of the important purposes of the said provisions of Sections 22 and 29 of the Act. Mr. Ray argued that in the present case since the bid of the petitioner was Rs. 1 lakh, the Presiding Officer of the auction could not have settled the Bissam -Cuttack O.S.shop along with another O.S. shop at Gudari in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu ignoring the aforesaid law laid down by the Apex Court that highest revenue is one of the objects of sale of an O.S.shop. According to Mr. Ray, this is a fit case in which the Court should quash the settlement in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu and direct that the Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop be settled in favour of the petitioner. Mr.Ray further submitted that the Presiding Officer of the public auction could not have tagged the Bissam -Cuttack O.S. shop along with the Gudari O.S. shop and settled the two shops in favour of Shri Sanjay Sahu and such clubbing of the two shops is contrary to the terms in the sale notice as well as the relevant Excise Rules. He also cited the judgments of the Supreme Court in Ram and Shyam Company v. State of Haryana and others, AIR 1985 SC 1147, and in Munindra Nath Upadhyaya v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1992 SC 566, in support of his submission that the Court can issue a mandamus and grant other relief in such cases when the Court finds that the grant of a contract pursuant to a public auction or tender is arbitrary or unfair or is not in the interest of public revenue.