SURESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was the successful bidder for the allotment of vends with respect to Unit No.9 (L-14), comprising Villages Bhadsali and Ghaluwal. Despite the fact that the petitioner was No.1 bidder, the vends were not allotted in his favour for the Financial Year 2007-2008 starting from 1.4.2007 on the ground that after the completion of the draw of lots the Selection Committee made several Announcements but the petitioner or his representative did not turn up or come forward to appear before the Selection Committee. Respondent No.5, being No.2 in the panel list and who was present in the hall, was allotted the aforesaid two vends. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ 1 Whether reporter of local papers are allowed to see the judgment ? petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India complaining of arbitrary action on the part of respondents No.1 to 4. On 30.3.2007, taking cognizance of the aforesaid complaint of the petitioner, this Court passed the following detailed order admitting the writ petition to hearing and granting ad interim relief in favour of the petitioner to the extent that the action of respondents No.1 to 4 in cancelling the allotment of the petitioner and in allotting the aforesaid liquor vends to respondent No.5 was stayed and suspended. Order dated 30.3.2007 reads thus:

(2.) AFTER 30.3.2007 for the first time this matter is appearing before us today.

(3.) THE Excise and Taxation Commissioner, the author of the aforesaid order, is neither a party-respondent in this case nor was any direction issued by this Court qua him for either taking any action or for passing any order. A perusal of the said order, read with the contents of the reply filed by respondents No.1, 2 and 4 on 15.9.2007 (supported by the affidavit of Excise and Taxation Commissioner affirmed on 13.9.2007) shows that he apparently was influenced and carried away by the alleged fact of the Government incurring loss at the rate of Rs.15,000/- per day for the non- functioning of the liquor vend and since apparently in his opinion the interim order passed by this Court on 30.3.2007 was the cause for the incurring of the said alleged loss by the Government, he without waiting for any adjudication by this Court with respect to the issue of arbitrariness involved in the writ petition took upon himself the burden of adjudicating upon this issue, ultimately thus having come to the finding that the presence of the successful bidder was not a condition precedent for allotment of the contract. Consequently he cancelled the allotment having been made in favour of respondent No.5 and allotted the contract to the petitioner.