CHANDRA KANTA ARANDHARA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these Civil Rules can be disposed of by a single order as they are directed against a common order dated 31-8-77 by the Government of Assam functioning as an appellate authority under Section 9 of the Assam Excise Act, 1910 in respect of settlement of a Country Spirit Shop called "No. 14 Dillighat Country Spirit Shop".

(2.) IT appears that the shop was settled by the Primary Settling Authority in favour of Chandra Kanta Arandhara, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 270/77, by his order dated 7-2-76. Dissatisfied with this order, three bidders, namely Kuladhar Bharali, Subodh Kumar Konwar and Girin Rajkonwar filed three separate appeals before the Government of Assam. Kuladhar Bharali's appeal was dismissed in default. He has not approached this Court. Subodh Kumar Konwar's appeal was allowed. The settlement in favour of Chandra Kanta Arandhara, petitioner in Civil Rule No. 270/77, was set aside and the shop was settled in favour of Subodh Kumar Konwar. Girin Rajkonwar's appeal was also dismissed. Consequently, Chandra Kanta Arandhara and Girin Rajkonwar have approached this Court by separate petitions, which have been registered as Civil Rules Nos. 270 and 291 of 1977, respectively.

(3.) IT is admitted that Chandra Kanta Arandhara was a Salesman at the time of submission of the tender. Nothing concrete has been placed before us to show as to when he gave up this job. But, apart from that, learned counsel has failed to satisfy us that the question: Whether a person is employed or unemployed must be judged not with reference to the date of submission of the tender but with reference to the date of settlement. Consequently, we are not in a position to hold that the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner could not be considered as unemployed is patently wrong. In this view of the matter, if the settlement made in favour of Chandra Kanta Arandhara by the Primary Settling Authority was set aside, the appellate authority cannot be said to have committed any error of law or any other manifest error in exercise of its jurisdiction. So far as Subodh Kumar Konwar is concerned, he is admittedly a Matriculate and is thus an educated person. He is also employed. As we shall presently show, his financial position has also been duly considered.