DINESH CHANDRA DOWERAH Vs. A.M. DAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS rule was issued on an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for issue of a writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or any other appropriate writ against the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 2 - -the Commissioner of Hills Division and Appeals, Assam and the Commissioner of Excise, Assam, Shillong respectively - -restraining them from giving effect to their impugned orders and directing opposite party No. 3 - -the Deputy Commissioner and District Collector, Lakhimpur - -to give effect to his order dated 29 -10 -1957 and further restraining opposite parties No. 4 from selling country spirit from Behia Chetia Country Spirit Shop on and from 1 -4 -1958.

(2.) THE main ground on which the petitioners' tender was rejected by the Excise Commissioner was that in the year 1937 Mohit Chandra Barua who is one of the tenderers was holding a Ganja shop in the year 1937 and was detected in giving short weight; his license was cancelled and a further punishment was awarded to him by forfeiture of half of the security money and he was further debarred from getting settlement of excise shops for two years. That was the ground on which the Excise Commissioner held that no settlement could be made with the applicants. On appeal the Appellate Authority on this question has come to the following finding:

(3.) IN fact in the previous year 1957 -58 the shop had been settled with the present applicants and no complaint was found against them. The appellate authority however found that in the column 10 of the Tender Form the petitioners had failed to mention this fact that in the year 1937 the license of Shri Mohit Chandra Barua had been cancelled and according to the Appellate Authority failure to mention this in the tender form was non -compliance with a mandatory requirement and thus their tender was liable to be rejected and could not be considered. On that finding he rejected the tender of the applicants. As regards the tender given by the opposite parties No. 4 the Appellate Authority came to the conclusion that there was no doubt that they were inexperienced in the trade but in the absence of any rival candidate in the field that was no ground to reject their tender and on that consideration he directed that the settlement be made with opposite parties No. 4.