9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (9) TMI 598X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s do require a consideration by the competent authority authorized a reject the higher bid offered and the auction held. The disputed questions of facts raised in this litigation can also better be appreciated by such authority. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) That Shri Y.S. Ratra Financial Commissioner, Taxation shall treat this writ petition as representation/revision in terms of Rule 36 (18) of the rules filed before him to determine the legality of the bids in auction held in favour of the private respondents. (ii) The parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard before passing the appropriate orders." Consequential directions were also given. The Financial commissioner heard the parties as directed by the High Court and rejected the representation/revision filed by the first respondent. He noted various circumstances on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that the first respondent had not given a bid of Rs. 4.21 crores for Group no. 108 or a bid of Rs.3.50 crores for Group no. 111. The Financial commissioner found that the possession of a receipt for entry into the auctio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t anything spectacular had happened in the pandal. The first respondent had not approached any of the senior officers who were in the city in connection with the auction. The mere mention during the argument that it had approached the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and told him its case and that be said he would look into the matter was an after-thought. If the difference between the successful bids and the allegedly higher bids was really of Rs.50 lacs and Rs.45 lacs respectively, the first respondent should have put it in writing and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner would have taken cognizance. The telegram sent by the first respondent was 4 days after the auction. There were telegrams under different names but they were all similarly worded and no mention was made therein of the amounts of the allegedly higher bids, but merely that a lower bid had been accepted despite a higher bid. Due credence had to be given to the reports of the two independent observers nominated by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of the District who were present at the pandal. No mention had been made of the alleged higher bids in the observers' reports, which sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd unconstitutional action on the part of the said S.K. Ralhan, but no action was taken. The denials of the respondents before the High Court were noted including those of the said S.K. Ralhan. The order on the earlier writ petition (No. 4872/96) was set out in extenso. The division Bench then enumerated the circumstances which had led the Financial commissioner to reject the representation or revision of the first respondent (as set out above). The validity of the auction was challenged by the first respondent on three grounds. the first and second grounds related to the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act and the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules and the terms and conditions of the auction notice. (There grounds were rejected and need not detain us.) the third ground, which was accepted, was set out thus : "iii) The petitioner, despite being the highest bidder, was wrongly shown to have not participated in the bid. The learned counsel had referred to various circumstances, which, according to him, show the bonafides of the petitioner in bidding in the auction and having been present on the spot." The Division bench stated that, in support of his submission that the first respondent h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g and not explained as to why such an omission was allowed in the case of Group Nos. 108 and 11 only and not in the case of any other group auctioned on the same day or thereafter. The first respondent had taken steps for participation in the auction by obtaining an entry slip and by procuring bank drafts, which led to the irresistible conclusion that it was not only a spectator. The affidavits of the partners of the first respondent showed that they were present at the time of the auction and had participated in it, but their presence was not taken note of. Press reports also suggested that the auction was not free from suspicion. Some extracts of these press reports were set out. It was then said by the Division Bench that it was true that press reports could not be made the basis for holding the auction illegal or contrary to the law; however, "in drawing inferences, the circumstances of the press reports cannot be completely ignored,..........". The telegrams aforementioned also could not be completely ignored. The mere omission of details therein could not be made the basis for rejecting them. It was not a coincidence that immediately after the auction was concluded on 11th Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequently, the auction of group Nos. 109, 110 and protection vend of Kotla Azner (Fatehgarh Sahib) in favour of the successful bidders of group Nos. 108 and 111 shall also stand quashed. This judgment would become effective from May 16, and the private respondents are allowed to continue their business until the mid-night of May 15, 1996. In view of the detailed discussion made above, the order of the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab (Annexure P 66) is quashed for the remaining period of 10 and a half months commencing with effect from 16.5.1996 to 31.3.1997. All the four groups, i.e., Nos. 108 to 111 and protection vend of Kotla Azner (Fatehgarh Sahib), are directed to be re-auctioned positively before May 15, 1996, at the cost of the petitioners, after due publicity and advertisement. The petitioners, private respondents and all others shall be permitted to participate in the bid, which shall be strictly held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 36 of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules. All such persons, who enter the venue for the purpose of bid, shall, recording their attendance and the bid shall be supervised by an officer, not below the rank of Financial Commission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and Taxation Minister of Punjab had said that while there was no report with the state Government on the alleged irregularities during the auction of liquor vends, it had come to the notice of the State Government that the auction of some liquor vends in Ludhiana were conducted in a manner contrary to the interests of the revenue and that, on the basis of a representation, the state Government had relieved the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner in charge of the Patiala Division of the responsibility of conducting auctions for the remaining districts of the Division. A copy of the order relieving the said S.K Ralhan was pointed out. Learned counsel submitted that even so, the Financial Commissioner in his report had stated that the decision of the state Government not to allow the said S.K. Ralhan to conduct auctions in the remaining districts of Patiala Division was based on administrative grounds. Learned counsel submitted that there was , thus, evidence to show that the auction had not been conducted fairly and in the prescribed manner. The Financial Commissioner in his report had stated that it was hard to believe that the Collector would not have intervened when bids of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the record. The division Bench in the order under appeal had not so held, specifically or impliedly. The order of the Financial Commissioner is not perverse or unreasonable. He was right in concluding that the fact that the first respondent had entered a bid. His views about the drafts procured by the first respondent from the banks at Khanna and Mandi Gobindgarh are not unreasonable, for , ordinarily, prospective bidder would not cut it so fine. He would ordinarily obtain the required bank drafts before the auction date and not wait to do so with only an hour or so to spare. No extraordinary circumstances have been adverted to by the first respondent which required it to be obtain the drafts only on the morning of the auction from banks which were a sizeable distances form its site. The pattern of bidding referred to by the Financial Commissioner is very telling. It is unlikely that when the bid is rising by Rs.10 lacs, Rs.3 lacs, Rs.2 lacs and Rs.1 lacs it should suddenly rise by Rs.50 lacs and Rs. 45 lacs respectively. The Financial Commissioner was justified in rejecting the case of the first respondent that ut had approached the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and spoken t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppears that this omission took place not only with regard to Group nos. 108 and 111 but with regard to all auctions in Ludhiana-I. The fact that the first respondent had taken steps for participation in the auction by obtaining an entry slip and by procuring bank drafts led the Division Bench "to the irresistible conclusion that they were not only spectators". The affidavits of the partners of the first respondent also showed that they were present at the time or the auction and had participated in it but their presence had not been taken note of. Extracts of press report were set out in the judgment and the Division Bench noted that while hey could bot be made a basis for holding an auction illegal or contrary to the law," in drawing inferences "the press reports could not be ignore. The mere omission of giving details in the telegrams was not a reason to reject them. It was not a coincidence that the said S.K. Ralhan had been transferred after the auction on 11th March ,1996, was concluded and it suggested, prima facie, that the authorities had been satisfied that he had not been fair in holding the auction. The Division Bench found that the successful bidders had not specificall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t off notices in all directions. All we have are telegrams sent four days after the auction which do not mention the enormous difference between the bids. Of the twelve to thirteen hundred persons present in the pandal, not one independent observer had stated on affidavit that the first respondent had m far larger than the successful bids but they had been ignored. To our ears the first respondent's story does not ring true. As we have already held the Financial Commissioner's conclusion in his report were reasonable. The remarks made by the Division Bench about him were not justified. As Financial Commissioner, he spoke to the press about the outcome of the auctions generally. This was in the performance of his duties. In any event, we do not see in his order anything that indicates that he was in any way biased. The Division Bench was, in the circumstances, in error in reaching the conclusion that the auction was not fairly and properly held with the result that the State exchequer had ben subjected to a huge loss. In any event, loss to the exchequer is a factor which may be taken in to account in genuine cases, as it was in the case of M/s. Rajshila cited by learned co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
