HEERA NAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal filed u/s. 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949, is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 29th March 1985, dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-appellant in limine.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner-appellant is that an auction of wholesale and retail-off shops for Indian made foreign liquor for the financial year 1985-86, was held on 13th March, 1985, for the districts of Sawaimadhopur and Tonk. THE list of retail shops for the excise-district Sawaimadhopur included the list of shops of Tonk District also, which was notified by the same notification. Shop-wise reserve-price and amount of earnest-money were also mentioned in the notification. THE notification mentioned the following particulars for the Tonk and Sawaimadhopur Districts :- Tonk District Name of the shop Reserve-Price Earnest-Money 1. Devli No. 1 1,55,900/- 7,800/- 2. Duni 88,100/- 4,410/- 3. Tonk No. 1 4,15,300/- 20,770/- 4. Tonk No. 2 4,15,300/- 20,770/- 5.Niwai 1,55,800/- 7,800/- 6.Uniyara 1,55,800/- 7,800/- 7.Malpura 1,55,800/- 7,800/- 8.Todarai Singh 1,55,800/- 7,800/- Sawaimadhopur District 1. Sawaimadhopur No. 1 2,76500/- 13,830/- 2. Sawaimadhopur No 2 2,76,500/- 13,830/- 3,53,000/- 3. Gangapur No. 1 1,53,900/- 7,700/- 4. Gangapur No. 2 1,53,900/- 7,700/- 5. Gangapur No. 3 1,53,900/- 7,700/- 4,61,700/- 6. Hindaun-No. 1 1,68,200/- 8,410/- 7. Hindaun-No. 2 1,68,200/- 8,410/- 3,36,400/- 8. Karauli-No. 1 1,68,200/- 8,410/- 9.Mahuwa-No. 1 1,49,900/- 7,500/- 10.Mahuwa-No. 2 1,49,900/- 7,500/- 2,99,800/- According to the petitioner-appellant, he deposited earnest-money to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- as follows:- 1. In cash deposited with the Cashier of D. E. Office : rs. 60,000/- 2. Deposited four Drafts : rs. 40,000/- Total : rs. 1,00,000/- THE case of the petitioner-appellant is that though he had deposited the requisite earnest-money for participation in the bid for the retail off shops of Tonk District, but, he was not allowed to take Part in the bid. It has been further alleged that the presiding officer, i. e. the Additional Excise Commissioner accepted the bids of respondent No. 5, Shyamdass & party for the retail off shops of Tonk No. 1 & 2, Todarai Singh, Malpura, Niwai and Uniyara; and the bid of respondent No. 6 Raghuvir Singh & Party, was accepted for the retail off shops of Devli and Duni.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant contended that requirement of such a solvency-certificate was not a pre requisite condition for taking part in the bids as mentioned in any of the provisions of the Rajasthan Excise Act, the Excise Rules or the Foreign Liquor Rules. It was also submitted in the alternative that even if any condition of certifying financial status was mentioned in condition No. 10. the same cannot be taken as mandatory, and a person cannot be debarred from taking part in the bids on account of any defect in the solvency-certificate. It was also argued in this regard that at least, the petitioner-appellant and the others like him ought to have been allowed to take part in the bids, and if subsequently, they failed to deposit 12-1/2% of the reserprice, there was sufficient safeguard with the Excise Authorities to forfeit 5% of the earnest-money which was deposited at the initial stage. It was also submitted in this regard that the petitioner-appellant had already deposited Rs. 30,000/- in cash by way of earnest-money and Rs. 20,000/- for solvency and that was sufficient for accepting the financial status of the petitioner-appellant. Even thereafter, if the auctioning-authority was not satisfied, it ought to have given opportunity for furnishing more security regarding financial status of the petitioner-appellant.