KAMLESH DAHIYA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sonepat whereby suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the appellant -plaintiff has been dismissed, as well as, against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2012 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Sonepat whereby appeal preferred by the appellant -plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 25.04.2011 has also been dismissed. For convenience sake, hereinafter parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the Court of first instance i.e. appellant as plaintiff and respondents as defendants.

(2.) THE detailed facts are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced. However, brief facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal as pleaded in the plaint are that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants alleging that auction of excise outlet for selling the country made liquor on fixed price by defendant no. 2 and 3 was carried out through defendant no.3 on 17.03.2006 for two liquor vends L -14A Ganaur City No.I and II for worth Rs.50 lacs each. As per policy of State of Haryana, the person who succeeds in the auction has to deposit 5% of the auction money immediately after the auction, otherwise the earnest money of Rs.1 lac deposited with the application for participation in the auction shall stand forfeited. Accordingly, the plaintiff had deposited Rs.2,50,000/ - each for two vends on the same day. As per the policy of the Government, another 5% was to be paid within 7 days of the auction i.e. on or before 24.03.2006, otherwise the license for the liquor vend would not be issued for the concerned financial year which was to commence from 01.04.2006. Meaning thereby, the person to whom the liquor shop was allotted could not start selling liquor from the vend unless he deposited 10% license fee which was payable by 07.04.2006. It is the case of the plaintiff that license fee for the two vends was on higher side, the plaintiff being fresher in business had not deposited the second 5% installment payable on 24.03.2006 and did not accept liquor vend no.II of Ganaur City. A letter dated 31.03.2006 was written for surrender of Vend No.II and the same was surrendered and request was made to adjust 5% of the amount against vend no.I Ganaur City. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant nos. 2 to 4 did not take action on application dated 31.03.2006 regarding surrender of vend no.II, rather 5% security amount deposited by the appellant was conveyed to be forfeited. The said vend was re -allotted on 05.07.2006. Vide subsequent letter dated 19.09.2006 which was received by the plaintiff on 17.10.2006 raised a demand of Rs.21,31,000/ - as short fall on account of re -allotment of the license.

(3.) ON the basis of pleadings of the parties, the Court of first instance framed the following issues: -