PARAS RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS these four petitions involve common questions of law and the facts involved in the petitions are also almost identical, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order.

(2.) THE petitions relate to the contracts for sale of country liquor, Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Beer in various Groups of shops in various areas of the State viz. (I) (i) Beawar -Bijainagar -Kekri Group ; (ii) Ajmer-Nasirabad-Kishangarh Group in Distt. Ajmer, which is involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1267/2000, (II) Kota-Ladpura-Digoti-Pipalda Group, which is involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1088/2000, (III) Raisingh Nagar Group, which is involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1270/2000 and (IV) Sojat-Marwar Group involved in DB Civil Writ Petition No. 1276/2000. THE contracts were for exclusive privilege for retail sale of country liquor in the area covered by the respective Groups and for sale of IMFL and beer in the wholesale and retail sale in the concerned local groups. On 9. 2. 99, the Excise Commissioner issued Notice inviting Tender in respect of different groups of shops in the State of Rajasthan for the amounts above the minimum (reserved) exclusive privilege amount fixed by the State Government for each of the liquor Groups. No one responded to the offer as nobody was prepared to pay the amount equivalent to or in excess of the minimum (reserved) exclusive privilege amount (EPA) in respect of any of the liquor groups. THE Excise Commissioner, thereafter, issued notice inviting tenders (NIT) on 9/3/1999, 18/3/1999 and 27/3/1999 in respect of the same shops. Even in response to this NIT, no valid offers were received and, therefore, the contracts could not be awarded.

(3.) THE contention of the State Government is that there was no concluded contract so far as stipulation of reduction in the contract amount in case the State Government assigns contracts for other Groups on the price less than the reserve EPA. It was contended that no condition, which was not in accordance with the terms contained in the tender form, was binding on the Government. It was also contended that the stipulation for reduction of price in specified contingencies was not accepted by the Committe of the State Government officials that was constituted for finalization of contracts. THE said Committee had decided to accept the offers and rejected the condition and that in view of the said condition having been so rejected, the condition did not form part of the contract. It was further contended that the order of sanction issued by the Excise Commissioner did not state that the condition in question was accepted by the State Government. It was further contended that the petitioners had acted upon the contract without there being any condition in the sanction letter about the acceptance of the additional stipulation as to reduction in price in specified contingencies mentioned by them and, therefore, they could not raise the issue now. It was further contended that the condition was introduced by the petitioners unilaterally and it was not accepted by the Licensing Authority and the licences were not countersigned for that reason. It was also contended that the reduction in reserve EPA for the groups other than the groups for which the contract was entered into with the petitioners, was totally irrelevant so far as the contract between the petitioners and the Government are concerned and the petitioners could not claim any benefit on the basis of reduction of EPA in respect of groups which have not been assigned to them under the contract. It was also pointed out by the respondents that the petitioners had not signed the counterpart agreements in terms of Sec. 33 of the Act and the respondent State had not issued excise licences in favour of the petitioners. In absence of excise licence containing such stipulation, no reduction in EPA could be claimed by the petitioners. It was also contended that the rejection of the stipulation providing for reduction of contract price by the occurrence of specified contingencies was within the knowledge of the petitioners and they started carrying on business under the contract knowing fully well that the condition stipulated by them had been rejected.