BHANWARLAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing the impugned order (Ex. 7) of respondent No. 2 dated 13th March, 1975, by which it had been ordered that the earnest money which had been deposited by the petitioners be forfeited and also declaring the petitioners to be disqualified for a period of three years from obtaining any licence under the Rajasthan Excise Act and the Rules.

(2.) LICENCE for the retail sale of country liquor in the State is governed by the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950, (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956 as amended (hereinafter to be called as 'the Rules' ).

(3.) IN Somasundaram Pillai vs. Provincial Government (2) the auction for giving licence in respect of four arrack shops was held under conditions of sale framed by the Board of Revenue. One of the conditions provided that if the bidder committed a breach of this condition he would be liable to make good any loss suffered by the Government. The plaintiff who had given bid for four shops but his bid for two shops was refused by the Collector, the competent authority though it had been provisionally accepted by the Sub Collector but who had no power to accept a bid. Thereafter the plaintiff informed the Collector that he was withdrawing his bid. Thereafter fresh auction took place and auction being of a less amount the Government forfeited the earnest money, and plaintiff filed a suit for refund. The learned Judge proceeded on the basis that the rules drawn up by the Board had no statutory force and, therefore, they could not be binding in law. It was further held that in an enforceable contract there must be an offer and an unconditional acceptance and the provisional acceptance by the Sub Collector was of no consequence and, therefore, could not bind the plaintiff and that as before the acceptance by the Collector the plaintiff had withdrawn his offer he was entitled to do so he could not be liable. It is, however, relevant to note that the learned Judges nevertheless while observing that the appellant was entitled to withdraw his offer as there was no consideration to support his implied acceptance of the condition that once a bid had been made it could not be withdrawn nevertheless observed: 'if the conditions of sale had statutory force, the position would of course be different but they had not statutory force. " 10. Similarly, in Raghunandhan vs. State of Hyderabad (3) after consideration of the relevant rules the Bench held that though the Deputy Excise Commissioner had power to accept the bid, but that bid is not final till after the expiry of one month during which period the Excise Commissioner had power of revocation and, therefore, it followed that the acceptance is n> t final till after the Excise Commissioner had approved it and as the plaintiff had withdrawn his offer before the approval by the Excise Commissioner, there was no concluded contract and, therefore, the State was not justified in refusing to refund the amount deposited by the bidder at the auction. Their Lordships also held that clause (10) which permitted the Excise Commissioner to suspend or revoke the auction within one month of the auction was a statutory condition. It was for this reason that the learned Judges held that as the offer was withdrawn earlier to the acceptance by the Excise Commissioner that there would be no concluded contract and no amount could be forfeited.