KRISHNA LAL AND PARTY Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Krishna Lal and Party, inter -alia, with following prayer: - -

(2.) FACTS of the case shorn of unnecessary details are that petitioner was granted licence of the exclusive privilege for the wholesale and retail sale of Indian made foreign liquor and beer and retail sale of country liquor for Jaipur city Group of Shops, for the years 1991 -1992 and 1992 -1993. Aforesaid license was granted to the petitioner after their participation in the process of tender pursuant to tender auction notice dated 06.02.1991 issued by the Excise Commissioner. Petitioner submitted his tender for Jaipur City group and offered the highest bid. Petitioner was awarded contract for retail sale of country liquor and it accordingly started business from 01.04.1991. For the first year, petitioner agreed to pay to the Government a sum of Rs. 37 crore for exclusive privilege amount with further undertaking, however, since the licence was for two years, the petitioner, for the second year, agreed to pay aforesaid amount along with increase by 15%. Condition No. 10 of the tender, copy of which is on record, provided that tenderer would be required to enclose with the tender a certificate duly attested with regard to his financial capacity and the said certificate should be of a minimum value of at least 12.5% of the total tender amount. Under condition No. 12(Ka) of the tender notice, another condition has been put that the tenderer along with his tender would be required to deposit earnest money in cash as notified in the tender notice in Column No. 6. Condition No. 13(Ka) provided that in case the tender is accepted, the successful tenderer would be required to deposit in cash an amount by way of security, equivalent to 12.5% of the exclusive privilege amount for the year 1991 -1992 in relation to country liquor, IMFL and Beer, within a period of three days from the date the list of successful candidates is notified. The earnest money deposited by the tenderer would be adjusted against the amount of security and balance security should be deposited by the tenderer by 20.03.199,1. Condition No. 13(Kha) provided that on the tender being accepted, the tenderer will have to deposit 1/3rd of the amount of exclusive privilege for wholesale licence of IMFL for the year 1991 -1992 as security by 20.03.1991 and earnest money would be adjusted therein. Condition No. 13(Ga) provided for ensuring due payment of the monthly installments of the exclusive privilege amount and that the tenderer will also have to furnish, apart from the security amount, one or more than one, solvent sureties for the amount equivalent to residual monthly installments for wholesale of IMFL and in case of country liquor, IMFL and Beer retail sale, the solvent surety would be equal to the amount of security, which would be required to be furnished by 20.03.1991. According to the petitioner, the petitioner has already submitted cash security to the tune of Rs. 4,65,76,045/ - and submitted solvency bonds to the tune of Rs. 4,62,50,000/ - and solvent sureties to the tune of Rs. 4,70,97,720/ -. For the year 1992 -93, the total amount of petitioner's security, solvencies and sureties is Rs. 16,09,12,322/ -, out of which the petitioner deposited cash security to the tune of Rs. 5,35,62,452/ -. The amount so deposited by the petitioner in cash with the respondent department remained with them for the entire period of more than two years but the respondents have not paid any interest whatsoever to the petitioner for retaining such a huge amount for this long period. On the other hand, the petitioner licensee was required to pay, according to Sec. 30 -A of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, (herein, 'the Act of 1950') interest to the State in case any amount is due, at the rate of 1 1/2% per month for the first three months and at the rate of 2% per month after three months. There is absolutely no justification for not paying interest to the petitioner on the cash security furnished by him as licensee.

(3.) SHRI K.K. Sharma, learned senior counsel for petitioner, argued that Rule 93 of the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, only empowers the Commissioner to prescribe the forms for any licence, permit, permission etc., but in exercise of that power, the Commissioner certainly cannot call upon the licensee to deposit cash security. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be allowed and respondents be directed to pay interest to the petitioner at the same rate at which it charged interest from petitioner as per provisions of Sec. 30 -A of the Act of 1950.