CHANDAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF common facts of all these writ petitions are that the respondents No. 2 issued notices inviting tenders for grant of exclusive license for sale of liquor for different areas in the State of Rajasthan, for the year 2002- 2003. In response of said N. I. T. , the petitioners submitted their tenders along with requisite earnest money. The petitioners are successful bidders and got the exclusive license for sale of liquor for the area for which they gave their bid. As per the conditions prescribed for the grant of the license for the sale of liquor, the petitioners were required to furnish cash security equal to 17 percent of the exclusive license amount within period of 10 days from the date of publication of acceptance of bid by affixing the information of acceptance of the bid. The petitioners were given two options for furnishing the security, one, by way of depositing the entire amount as mentioned above or by depositing 10% of license amount instead of 17% (after adjusting the adjusting the earnest money) with Bank Guarantee of the amount, equal to 10% of bid amount, for a period three months beyond the license period. The petitioners opted for the second option and deposited 10% of the bid amount and furnished Bank guarantee of the amount equal to the 10% of the bid amount. The cash amount was deposited within the period but the bank guarantees were submitted by the petitioners after the period available to them for furnishing the bank guarantee. These facts are not in dispute. The respondents issued demand notices against the petitioners demanding interest @ 2% per month for the period of delay on the ground that the petitioners failed to furnish the bank guarantees within the period available to them for furnishing the bank guarantees. Mainly, dispute between the petitioners and the respondents is that whether the petitioners are at all liable to pay the interest to respondents only because of the reason that the petitioners failed to furnish the bank guarantee within the period available to them?

(2.) ACCORDING to petitioners, as per the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed there under and so also as per the prescribed performa of license, no amount of interest on late deposit of bank guarantee can be levied by the respondents. Respondents can charge and demand interest only under Section 30- A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (in short "act of 1950" ). The Section 30-A permits respondents to charge the interest, if the amount of any duty, fee or other demand is due under the Act or the Rules made there under. The interest can be charged under the section from the day on which the said amount became due. ACCORDING to the petitioners, admittedly, neither the duty nor the fee or any other demand is due in the petitioners and the non-furnishing of the Bank Guarantee cannot be treated as any amount of duty, fee or other amount due. It is further pleaded that neither under the Act or the Rules nor there is any clause in the agreement or license providing levy of interest because of the late deposit of the bank guarantee. Even the respondents cannot claim interest over the security amount.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even for charging interest, the respondents are required to pass an order, determining the "due" and thereafter can issue notice of demand by following the procedure given under the rule 76-A of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956. It is also submitted by the petitioners that before raising this demand, no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and therefore, the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice.