SWARAJ SURI Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although Rule nisi has not been issued, the matter was argued at length and threadbare The rival submissions on points of law and fact have been carefully examined : (i) in light of the relevant statutory provisions contained in the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the Punjab Liquor License Rules, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules -), as amended from time to time and as applicable to the case in hand [sections 3 (9) and (12 -a), 8, 9, 12, 26, 34, 35 and 59 and Rules 1, 24, 35 and 36, and (ii) keeping in view the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in several decisions relating to the grant of liquor licenses and, more particularly, the decisions in Har Shankar and others etc. etc. v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and others etc., AIR 1975 SC 1121 and State of Haryana and others v. Jage Ram and others, AIR 1980 SC 2018, both of which are decisions rendered in the context of the statutory provisions with which the Court is herein directly concerned and also the decision in State of Orissa v. Harinarain, AIR 1982 SC 1816.

(2.) The controversy between the parties relates to the grant of license in forms L -2, L -10 and L -14 in District Una to the fourth respondent by negotiations. There are in all 20 vends covered by the aforesaid categories of license in District Una, in respect of each of which an auction was held on March 18, 1985. The petitioner was the highest bidder in respect of 4 vends. The fourth respondent was the highest bidder in respect of one vend. Under sub -rules (18) and (22) of Rule 36, all sales by auction are open to revision and the bids accepted are subject to confirmation by the Financial Commissioner to whom the Collector, who is the I auctioning authority, has to forward statements showing the locality of each shop sold, the probable sales during the year, the lowest fee determined prior to the auction, the names of the persons to whom the shops have been sold for the highest bid etc, The second respondent, who is the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and who has been invested with the powers conferred on the Financial Commissioner by the Act, received such statements in respect of the aforesaid auctions and having considered the results of the auction he refused to sanction the auction on the round that bid moneys were not as per expectation. On March 24, 1985, therefore, the second respondent gave licenses in respect of all the excise vends of District Una by negotiations to the fourth respondent in the presence of the Assistant Excise and Taxation Commissioner, incharge District Una and other Excise contractors for a consideration of Rs, 10,80,000.00 The consideration thus realised resulted in an increase of Rs. 10,80,000.00 over the consideration received in the previous year and also in an increase of Rs. 7,21,000.00 over the totality of consideration received as a result of the bids offered at the auction held on March 18, 1985.

(3.) The petitioner challenges the aforesaid action on the part of the second respondent on the grounds that : (i) under the law in force licenses, in forms L -2, L -10 and L 14 can be granted only by the Collector by auction and not by the second respondent by negotiations, (ii) in any case, since a monopoly was to be granted to one person in respect of all vends covered by different categories of licenses an opportunity was required to be given to all interested parties to make offers in the course of negotiations and (iii) the exercise of power was mala fide since the fourth respondent, who had procured licensee in respect of only one vend at the auction, was given the monopoly of all vends.