1954 (5) TMI 19 - SC - Central Excise

Whether the appellant can complain by way of a writ? - the sale of a liquor contract by auction - grant -of the contract to Thimmappa was wrong as he was present at the auction but did not bid Held that - Appeal dismissed. He could have done so in an ordinary case. The appellant is interested in these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same treatment and be given the same chance as anybody else. Here we have Thimmappa who was present at the auction and who did not did not that it would make any difference if he had, for the fact remains that he made no attempt to outbid the appellant. If he had done so it is evident that the appellant would have raised his own bid.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the cancellation of a liquor contract auction.
2. Authority of the Deputy Commissioner to award the contract to a different bidder.
3. Compliance with the Mysore Excise Act and Rules regarding liquor licensing auctions.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the cancellation of a liquor contract auction:
The Supreme Court considered the appeal regarding the cancellation of a liquor contract auction in the State of Mysore. The appellant, Guruswamy, had bid the highest amount of Rs. 1,80,000 per month for the contract. However, the Excise Commissioner canceled the auction sale as another bidder, Thimmappa, offered a higher amount of Rs. 1,85,000 per month. The Court analyzed the Mysore Excise Act and Rules governing liquor licensing auctions. It was emphasized that any departure from the specified auction or tender methods must be sanctioned by the Government and notified publicly. Since there was no notification for an alternative method, the Court concluded that the auction was the valid mode of sale. The cancellation by the Excise Commissioner was deemed proper, and the appellant's request for a writ of mandamus to confirm his right to the license was denied.

2. Authority of the Deputy Commissioner to award the contract to a different bidder:
The Court examined the Deputy Commissioner's subsequent action of awarding the contract to Thimmappa after the cancellation. It was argued that Rule II. 10 granted the Deputy Commissioner absolute discretion to re-auction or act "otherwise" after a cancellation. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that any alternative method must be in line with the rules and notified publicly. Arbitrary improvisation in such matters was deemed contrary to legislative policy. Therefore, the grant of the contract to Thimmappa was deemed incorrect.

3. Compliance with the Mysore Excise Act and Rules regarding liquor licensing auctions:
The judgment highlighted the importance of adhering to the Mysore Excise Act and Rules in conducting liquor licensing auctions. It stressed that matters of public concern, such as revenue from liquor contracts, should not be subject to arbitrary executive decisions. The Court emphasized the need for transparency and public notification when deviating from auction or tender methods. It was noted that the legislative framework aimed to prevent favoritism and corruption in such contracts. Despite acknowledging the appellant's rightful claim, the Court dismissed the appeal due to the limited time left in the contract term, directing the State of Mysore and Thimmappa to pay the appellant's costs.