SATISH DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who was an applicant for liquor outlet is seeking quashing of part of Clause 2.8 of the Excise Policy 2012-13 which provides for forfeiture of earnest money in case where the bid exceeds the reserve price by more than 25%, the bidder is required to enclose a demand draft of an amount equivalent to 20% of his bid amount and having failed to do so, the earnest money was liable to be forfeited. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present writ petition are that for the allotment of liquor vend in the State of Haryana, respondent had issued Excise Policy for the year 2012-13 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner applied for allotment of proposed Indian Manufactured Foreign Liquor (IMFL) Vend/Group for the year 2012-13 in general category shown at Serial Nos. 17 and 18 in the list of proposed IMFL Vend/Group (Annexure P-2). Accordingly, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 75,000/-each for the two separate applications as participation fee. Along with the applications, the petitioner had also deposited earnest money of Rs. 5 lacs for both the applications separately besides submitting his financial bids to the tune of Rs. 2,01,40,000/-against each application. The bids of the petitioner were opened on 9.3.2012 and his financial bid was rejected by respondent No. 4 on the same day on the ground that since the financial bid exceeded the reserve price by more than 25% and he failed to enclose a demand draft of an amount equivalent to 20% of the bid amount. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that respondent No. 2 had issued instructions dated 29.2.2012 prescribing procedure for the allotment of liquor vend by inviting sealed bids for the year 2012-13. As per Clauses 7.2 and 8 of the said Instructions, in case any applicant submits his bid which exceeds the reserve price by more than 25%, he was required to enclose a demand draft of an amount equivalent to 20% of the bid amount along with the financial bid. Further, as per Clause 8, if the 20% of the bid amount is not deposited, the bid was liable to be cancelled and the earnest money was to be forfeited. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the Instructions dated 29.2.2012 issued by respondent No. 2 and the order dated 9.3.2012 passed by respondent No. 4.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

(3.) A perusal of the petition shows that against the reserve price of Rs. 1,36,50,000/-, the petitioner had given a bid amount of Rs. 2,01,40,000/-. Admittedly, the said amount exceeded 25% of the reserve price. Once that was so, the petitioner was required to enclose a demand draft of 25% of the bid amount in terms of Clause 2.8 of the Excise Policy 2012-13. The petitioner having failed to do so, the amount was forfeited. The petitioner has sought to challenge the said condition of the Excise Policy on the ground that the same is unreasonable, arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.