BUDH RAM Vs. EXCISE & TAXATION OFFICER, KAITHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1902 and 2645 of 1980 as identical questions of law and fact are involved in both these writ petitions.

(2.) The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Assistant Collector (Excise and Taxation) Ist Grade, Kaithal, whereby he was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 29,500 on 26.5.1980 failing which recovery would be effected by means of warrant of arrest and public auction of his property.

(3.) The Excise and Taxation Department held auction for a country liquor vend at village Tik for the year 1979-80 where respondent Nos. 2 and 3 gave a bid for a sum of Rs. 2,06,000/-. Since respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the auction, so their licence was cancelled and the vend was ordered to be reauctioned for the rest of the financial year. Subsequently, a fresh auction was held for the remaining part of the period in which petitioner and respondent No. 4 were the highest bidder which was for a sum of Rs. 55,000/-. This aforesaid reauction took place at Kurukshetra on 6.11.1979 at about 10.00 a.m. All the formalities were duly completed by the authorities. It is the case of the petitioner that, in fact, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with fraudulent intention gave the petitioner excessive doses of drinks and so under the influence of liquor the signatures of the petitioner were obtained on certain papers so as to make the petitioner partner of the respondent No. 4. Not only this, respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in fact, deposited a sum of Rs. 100/- in the department of excise in the name of respondent No. 4. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that at no time he participated in this auction and so the various papers alleged to have been executed by him were procured by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 whose licence had been cancelled by the department for various malpractices committed by them earlier. Accordingly, as soon as it came to the notice of the petitioner that he has been shown to be the highest bidder in the liquor vend of village Tik, he sent telegram to the Excise and Taxation Commissioner on 9.11.1979 informing the concerned officer that he was not interested in getting the licence. A detailed letter was also sent to the concerned authorities about 2-3 days thereafter. Not only this, the petitioner specifically made averment to the effect that neither he nor his forefathers ever did the business of selling liquor and he being an agriculturist is not conversant with this trade at all. Similarly, respondent No. 4 informed the Excise and Taxation Commissioner by means of telegram on 9.11.1979.