PARAS RAM Vs. EXCISE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal filed under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1949 is directed against the order dated November 1, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8453/2006 by which the prayers made by the appellant (1) to restrain the respondents from recovering the amount mentioned in the demand notices dated July 21, 2001 and September 25, 2006 produced as Annexure-2 and Annexure-3, respectively, (2) to direct the respondents to release the property from attachment and from process of auction sale and (3) to direct the respondents to refund the amount of Rs. 56 lacs so far recovered with interest, are refused.

(2.) The Excise Commissioner, Rajasthan issued notice dated February 9, 1999 inviting tenders for grant of license for sale of liquor from the shops falling under different liquor groups for a period of two years i.e. 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The notice inviting tender did not elicit any offer. Therefore, on March 18, 1999, and March 27, 1999 fresh notices were issued inviting tenders for grant of license for sale of liquor. The petitioner applied for license and his offer was accepted on March 22, 1999. According to the petitioner, the Excise Commissioner during discussion pointed out that the contracts in respect of Bundi and Ramganjmandi groups would be granted if the petitioner purchased the Exclusive Privilege for the sale of liquor at Kota Group for an amount of minimum EPA. However, according to the petitioner, petitioner agreed to accept the said stipulation subject to the condition that the amount would be liable to be reduced with reference to the maximum possible benefits in terms of reduction on the minimum EPA that might be granted by the Excise Commissioner in respect of another group. The case of the petitioner was that the Excise Commissioner accepted this condition in principle and agreed that any offer to be submitted by the appellant in respect of Kota Group would include the stipulation mentioned by the appellant. The case of the petitioner is that the Excise Commissioner issued acceptance-cum-sanctioned latter dated March 30, 1999 wherein no condition was stipulated as suggested by the appellant. The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 1,67,00,307/- as earnest money by way of demand draft on March 30, 1999 and thereafter a further sum of Rs. 5,62,46,200/- was deposited. The case of the appellant is that though he discharged all the obligations under the Contract, the respondents issued notice for recovery of the balance of licence fee amounting to Rs. 677.12 lacs vide notice dated February 25, 2000 and March 1, 2000. Initially, the appellant filed a civil suit challenging those notices but same was withdrawn. The appellant invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by filing D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 1088/2000 on March 16, 2000 and challenged the demand notices. The Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated November 24, 2000 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant holding that reduction of EPA in case it was reduced for other contracts was not a condition of the contract. On the basis of finding recorded by the court in D.B. (Civil) Writ Petition No. 1088/2000, the demand notices were issued which were impugned in the petition. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition vide order dated November 1, 2006 which has given rise to the instant appeal.

(3.) This Court has heard Mr.Mahendra Singh, learned Counsel for the appellant and considered the documents forming part of the petition.