9911796707
TMI Blog1954 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . S. K. Aiyangar for respondent No. 4. 1954. May 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.-We are concerned in this appeal with the sale of a liquor contract for the year 1953-54 in the State of Mysore. The appellant, Guruswamy, and the fourth respondent, Thimmappa, are rival liquor contractors. The contract for the City and Taluk of Bangalore was auctioned by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, on 27th April, 1953. The appellant's bid of Rs., 1,80.000 a month was the highest, so the contract was knocked down in his favour subject to formal confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. n le same ay the appellant deposited RS. 1,99,618-12-0. The fourth respondent, Thimmappa, was present at the auction but did not bid. Ins ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and so has come here. The matter is governed by the Mysore Excise Act of 1901 and the Rules made under it. Section 15 of the Act prohibits the sale of liquor without a licence from the Deputy Commissioner. Section 16 provides that- "It shall be lawful for the Government to grant to any person or persons on such conditions and for such period as may seem fit the exclusive or other privilege............................. (2) of selling by retail any country liquor within any local area. No grantee of any privilege under this section shall exercise the same until he has received a licence in this behalf from the Deputy Commissioner." Section 29 authorises Government to make rules for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r later on." This Court had occasion to observe in State of Assam v. Keshab Prasad Singh and Others(1)-a fisheries case that the sale of these licences forms such a lucrative (I) Civil Appeal No. 176 of 952. Source of revenue that State Legislatures have deemed, it wise not to leave the matter to unfettered executive; discretion; accordingly legislation has been enacted in most parts of India to regulate and control the licensing of these trades; Acts are passed and elaborate Rules are drawn up under them. It is evident that there is a policy and a purpose behind it all and it is equally evident that the fetters imposed by legislation cannot be brushed aside at the pleasure of either Government or its officers. The Rules bind State and s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urgency of the situation being one of them; nor are they bound to follow Rule I. 2 as an alternative. They have a discretion under Rule I. I and can act "otherwise". But if they wish to do that, then it is essential that due notice and publicity be given of the "otherwise" method in a Government notification as Rule I. 1 directs. The Gazette is issued every week and where necessary a special edition of the Gazette can be issued at a day's notice, so the urgency of the matter is no real reason for bypassing the Rules. What the Legislature has insisted on is that whenever there is a departure from the methods of auction and tender provided for in the Rules, the departure must be sanctioned by Government and must be "notified". The matter -can ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been called upon to correct a mere technical error in the exercise of a jurisdiction which was otherwise valid. It must be remembered that the Excise Commissioner was not a Court of law whose seisin was dependent upon the filing of a regular appeal. The sale was cancelled and a reason was given; and the fact that Government would be able to get an extra Rs. 5,000 a month as revenue is cerainly a good reason. The cancellation was therefore proper and as the appellant obtained no right to the licence by the mere fact that the contract had been knocked down in his favour (the acceptance being subject to sanction) the appellant's first relief asking for a mandamus to confirm his right to the licence for 1953-54 cannot be granted. We now pass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisation of an ad hoc procedure to meet the exigencies of a particular case is ruled out. The grant -of the contract to Thimmappa was therefore wrong. The next question is whether the appellant can complain of this by way of a writ. In our opinion, 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. The procedur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
