BHANWARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this appeal under Section 18(1) of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 the unsuccessful petitioners, (appellants) before us question the correctness of the Judgment dated May 14, 1976 of the learned Single Judge by which part of the impugned order EX. 7 (dated March 13, 1975) was quashed and it was left open to the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur(respondent No. 2) to proceed according to law against the petitioners under Rule 74(5) of the Excise Rules, 1956 (for short 'the Rules' hereinafter) after giving them a proper opportunity of hearing. The learned single Judge refused to quash the order Ex. 7 dated March 13, 1975 forfeiting the earnest money of Rs. 1,02,000/ -. Licence for the retail sale of country liquor in this State are governed by the provisions contained in the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (No. II of 1950) for short 'the Act') as amended from time to time. A notice for inviting tenders dated Jan. 16, 1975 and detailed instructions for the tender notice were issued. The petitioner has filed tender notice (Ex. 1) dated January l6, 1975. In response to the notice the appellants who will for the sake of convenience be hereinafter referred as the petitioners submitted their tender for the retail sale of country liquor for the group of shops of Jodhpur city. The tender was for Rs. 61,01,117/ - They also deposited the earnest money of Rs. 1,02,000/ - as required by the Rules. The tender was opened on February 7, 1975. Their tender was the highest. No intimation was given to them regarding acceptance of the tender personally or on the notice board. The petitioners sent a telegraphic notice Ex. 3 dated February 12, 1975 stating that the Excise Commissioner was bound to communicate acceptance and to ask them to deposit the security amount. It was also stated that the petitioners have reliably learnt that the Government was contemplating to auction the individual shops for Jodhpur on February 23, 1975 and as no tender in that respect was forth -coming nothing came out of it. A telegram Ex. 4 dated February 28, 1975 was sent to the Excise Commissioner intimating him that their tender stood with -drawn and they asked for refund of the earnest money. The Excise Commissioner, however, informed the petitioners that their tender had been accepted and they should deposit a part of the security amount within five days and the balance thereof by March 15, 1975. Again a telegram Ex. 5 was sent stating therein that the auction had already been conducted on February 23, and 24, 1975 despite their notice and this act of auction means that their tender had been rejected and stood withdrawn because of the non -acceptance. As the petitioners had not deposited the security amount as required by the Rules the earnest money deposited by them was forfeited. An order was also made under Rule 74(5) of the Rules declaring them disqualified for the period of three years for obtaining licence under the Rules. This led to the filing of the writ petition by the petitioners on May 8, 1975 praying that the order Ex. 7 dated March 13, 1975 forfeiting the earnest money may be quashed and a direction against the respondents to refund the said amount to them. It was also prayed that the declaration given in the order Ex. 7 that the petitioner would be disqualified to obtain the licence for three years under the Rules may be quashed.

(2.) THE writ petition was contested on behalf of the respondents by filing a return. It was stated that the tenders of the petitioner were accepted on March 1, 1975. The acceptance order was pasted on the notice board of the office of the Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan, Udaipur on that very day. The petitioners were also sentan order intimating the acceptance of their tenders. The tenders are said to have been opened in the presence of the petitioners and were accepted and the acceptance was communicated. The petitioners did not deposit the security amount. The fact of unilaterally revoking the tender was denied. The forfeiture of the earnest money was justified on various grounds and the Rules. An objection was taken that the writ petition involves disputed and complicated questions of fact and law which cannot conveniently be decided by this Court in the writ petition.

(3.) HE however left it open to the Excise Commissioner, if he is so advised, to proceed according to law against the petitioners under Rule 74(5) of the Rules after giving them proper opportunity,