SANGRAM SINGH JAISWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ petitions are based upon A common set of facts and the points involved in them are identical. The petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 8 is one Sangrarn Singh Jaiswal while that in C. W. J. C. No. 9 is a partnership firm by the name of Messrs. Ram Narain and Sons. The reliefs claimed in both the writ petitions are for issuance of an appropriate writ quashing the order of the Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar, respondent No. 2 dated the 22nd of April, 1974 (Annexure 3) by which exclusive privilege for the whole sale supply of country liquor to the warehouses in the State of Bihar for the period from, the 1st of April, 1974 to the 31st of March, 1977, has been granted to Messrs. S. K. G. Sugar Ltd., respondent No. 4, along with two others and for a writ of mandamus commanding the State of Bihar, the Member, Board of Revenue and the Commissioner of Excise, Bihar (respondents 1 to 3) to grant exclusive privilege to the petitioners in the two cases for the areas tendered by them. 2. The facts, on the basis of which arguments have been advanced in these cases, may be stated in a very narrow compass Although the briefs are rather voluminous Mr. Chagla appearing for the petitioner firm in C. W. J. C. No. 9, whose arguments were adopted by Mr. K.D. Chatterji appearing for the petitioner in C. W. J. C. No. 8, confined his submissions on only these facts. On the 31st of October, 1973 a notification was published in the Bihar Gazette inviting tenders for grant of exclusive privilege for the wholesale supply of country liquor to the warehouses in the State of Bihar for the period--1st April, 1974 to 31st March, 1977--under Section 22 of the Bihar and Orissa Excise Act, 1915 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), The last date fixed for the receipt of tenders was the 15th of December, 1973. The tender form and tender notice have been annexed as Annexures 1 series to the petition. Fifteen tenders were received in the office of the Excise Commissioner, respondent No. 3, out of which, ultimately, only seven tenderers remained in the field, quoting various rates per L. P. litre. The rates tendered by them varied between 0.45 paise per L. P. litre and 0.60 paise per L. P. litre in the following manner:

(2.) The Minister, after having recorded his minutes, forwarded the file to the Chief Minister. On the 18th of April, 1974, the Chief Minister passed the following orders:-- "Let the Board of Revenue exercise its statutory powers and decide." The file was received by the Member, Board of Revenue, on the 22nd of April, 1974 and he passed an order contrary to the order of the Minister of Excise and fixed the rate at 0.48 paise per L. P. litre The order was communicated to the petitioners by a forwarding letter dated the 26th of April, 1974 from the Commissioner of Excise. By far the major portion of the area of the State was allotted to respondent No. 4 and some area was allotted to Messrs. Kanpur Sugar Works and some to Messrs. Arun Chemical Industries (P.) Ltd. nO challenge is made in the present petitions to the grant of exclusive privilege regarding the areas allotted to Messrs. Kanpur Sugar Works and Messrs. Arun Chemical industries (P.) Ltd. Since exclusive privilege in respect of a very large area in the State has been granted to respondent No. 4, it is asserted that a virtual monopoly has been conferred on it.

(3.) The petitioners' case is that they having been granted such privilege in respect of the area claimed by them in the past, there was no reason why their cases should have been unduly ignored. In reply, it has been asserted by respondents 1 to 3 as well as respondent No. 4 that the most impelling criteria for the allotments in question were considerations of the quantum of production of each one of the tenderers and its capacity to feed the requirements of the warehouses. The past experience of the department, during the previous term of contract, showed that it was becoming increasingly difficult for a non-distillery owner to make regular and prompt supply of spirit to the warehouses after purchasing the same from distillers. Almost all the warehouses under the contract of those contractors who had no running distilleries of their own went dry at one time or the other and the supplies were mostly made by Messrs. S. K. G. Sugar Ltd., respondent No. 4, or by two other distillers, with which we are not concerned. The supplies made by respondent No. 4 outside its contracted area were almost at par with the supplies in its own contracted area. Thus, while it met the full, annual demand of 1.20 crore L. P. litres pertaining to its own contracted area, it supplied on demand from contractors of outside its contracted area to the extent of 1.02 crore L. P, litres as it was bound in law to do in view of condition 7 (B) of licence in Form 27. And, had it not met the demands of spirit of the warehouses attached to the non-distiller contractors, the State Government would have been put to a tremendous loss of revenue of nearly ten crores of rupees. The performance of non-distiller contractors was very poor and it was expected to be poorer in view of the increasing difficulties relating to procurement and transport of spirit in the current contract. It was for the above reason that the Board was compelled to take a decision that preference will be given to such tenderers who have their own distilleries.