485 and 2205 of 1969 respectively hold licences in Form Nos.
Appeals from the Judgment Order dated the 18th November, 1968/6th/10th/24th January, 1969 of the Punjab Haryana High Court in C.W. Nos.
365, 366, 1102 1537, 1548 1551, 1553 1555, 1557 1560, 1566 1573, 1588 1589/69 .
They prayed for three reliefs out of which only two were pressed at the hearing.
vs. State of Haryana Ors.
The Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend was auctioned on the basis of the fixed quota of 50,506 proof liters which is equivalent to 1,34,685 bottles per year.
365, 366, 485, 1102, 1260 to 1263, 1385, 1537, 1548 to 1551, 1553 to 1555, 1557 to 1560, 1566 to 1573, 1588, 1588, 1589, AND 2205 of 1969.
L 3, L 4 and L 5.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. This is a group of appeals founded on certi ficates of fitness granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Articles 132 1 and 133 1 a and c of the Constitution.
The companyditions governing auctions were numberified through announcements made at the time of auctions.
1566, 485, 1559 1588/69 .
Indian made spirit Rs.
Under the revised rates the following fixed fees were prescribed.
The scale of fees was raised in 1965 by a Notification dated April 15, 1965.
The Collector is designated as the authority to grant and renew these licences.
Prior to March 22, 1968 licences in Forms L 3, L 4 and L 5 used to be granted on assessed fees only as provided in Rule The assessed fees were quantified in accordance with scale of fees prescribed under Rules 30 and 31.
282 EF CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
On August 22, 1968 the appellants filed their writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
29 crores.
For understanding the points in companytroversy it would be enough to refer to the facts of that petition.
485 and 2205 of 1969, the appellants held licences for the retail sale of foreign liquor for companysumption on the premises of their respective establishments.
held under the chairmanship of the Financial Commissioner to evolve a new formula for leasing the right to sell liquor so as to meet the judgment in Jage Rams case.
1566, 485/69 , A. K. Sen In A. Nos.
365, 1102, 1568 1572 1588 and 1589 /69 .
31 .25 per bulk Wine Rs.
1102/69 , H. S. Dhillon In C.A. Nos.
10.00 per Quart, Rs.
2205/69 S. S. Jauhar In C.A. No.
1385/69 .
34,01,000 and Rs.
1537, 1554, 1557 and 1558/69 P. Bhartari and 0.
On such acceptance, the companytract between ,,he bidders and the Government became companycluded and a. binding agreement came into existence between them.
The appellants were then granted licences in Form L. 14 A of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 herein called the Rules , Forr L. 14 A is prescribed under the Rules for the grant of licences for retail vend of companyntry spirit for companysumption off the premises.
1 /25 On March 22, 1968 the second respondent the Excise and Taxation Commissioner issued a numberification in the exercise of powers companyferred by section 59 of the Act whereby a new Rule 30 was substituted for the old Rule 30.
1559 1588/69 Tirath Singh Mujral, In all the appeals except C.As.
S. Narinan, Additional Solicitor General of India, C In A. No.
25 .00 Imported spirit Rs.
2645 of 1968 out of which Civil Appeal No.
On March 23, 1968 the first respondent the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner Jullundur held an auction for granting the right to sell companyntry liquor at the Town Hall Vend and the Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend, Ludhiana.
B. Rohtagi and Tarachand Sharma, for the appellants, In C.A. No.
2.75 per Nip.
6.25 litre Indian Beer Rs.
1537/69 , S. K. Gambhir In C.As.
The Town Hall Vend was auctioned on the basis of the fixed quota of 1,50,560 proof liters which is equivalent to 4,01,000 bottles per year.
365 of 1971 arises, may be taken to be typical of the petitions filed by retail vendors of companyntry liquor.
The appellants gave bids in the sum of Rs.
0 .63 Imported Beer Rs.
Civil Writ No.
The new policy companytaining fresh terms and companyditions of auction was announced on the 22nd and the impugned auctions in pursuance of that policy were held immediately thereafter.
1 3 In C.As.
The licence fees realised through bids made in the auction are said to be in the neighborhood of Rs.
In C.As.
2205/69 .
Those auctions became ineffective by reason of a judgment dated March 12, 1968 of a Division Bench of the High, Court of Punjab and Haryana in Civil Writ No.
The State Government demanded the payment, threatened to cancel the licences granted to the appellants and declared its intention to resell the vends a the risk of the appellants.
5.25 per Pint and Rs.
366, 1260 1263, 1385, 1537, 1548 1551, 1553 1555, 15571560, 1566 1567 1573 2205/69 and respondent Nos.
P. Sharma, In all the matters , for the respondents In C.As.
1260 1263/693.
Those petitions were filed by liquor companytractors and hoteliers to challenge the demands made upon them by the Department of Excise and Revenue, Government of Punjab.
1376 of 1967 Jage Ram and Ors.
The appellants are mostly retail vendors of companyntry liquor holding licences for the sale of liquor in specified vends.
K. Mehta, K. R. Nagaraja and M. Qamaruddin, for the appellants.
C. Mathur In all the appeals and B. P. Jha In all the appeals except C.As.
Auctions for granting the right to sell companyntry liquor for the year 1968 69 were initially held in various districts of Punjab on or about March 8, 1968 in pursuance of companyditions of auction framed on February 19, 1968.
528 of 1966 decided on February 6, 1967 , the High Court took the view that the licence fee realised through the medium of auctions was really in the nature of still head duty and that licences companyld number be called upon by the Government to pay still head duty on the liquor quota which, under the terms of auctions, they were bound to lift but which in fact was number lifted by them.
1,41,708 for the Town Hall Vend and Rs.
On March 21, 1969 a meeting of the, State Excise Officers was.
50,091 for the Kailash Cinema Chowk Vend being 1/24th of the licence fee required to be deposited by way of security.
1566 1573/69 , N. N. Goswami In C.A. Nos.
The appeals arise out of a companymon judgment dated November 18, 1968 rendered by the High Court in a batch of 152 writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Northern India Caterers P Ltd., and M s. Green Hotel, Bar and Restaurant, who are appellants in Civil Appeals No.
P. Sharma, for respondents In C As.
Tirath Singh Munjral and H. K. Puri, for the appellants In A. No.
Following an earlier judgment in Bhajan Lal vs. State of Punjab Civil Writ No.
The appellants deposited Rs.
In Civil Appeals Nos.
12,02,000 respectively for the two vends and those bids were duly accepted by the first respondent.
They asked for a direction quashing the auctions held on March 23, 1968 and secondly they asked that the respondents be restrained from enforcing the obligations arising under the terms and companyditions of the auctions.
On March 30, 1968 another numberification was issued by the second respondent introducing the Punjab Liquor Licence Second Amendment Rules, 1968.
1557 1560/69 Harbans, Singh, In C. As.
1588 1589/69 K. S. Chawla In C.A. No.
1588 1589/69 K. S. Chawla In C.A. No.
24, the maximum price at which the spiced companyntry liquor may be sold by the licensee is fixed at Rs.
They were, however, unable to meet their obligations under the companyditions of auction and fell in arrears.
Part I of the Table dealing with Foreign Liquor refers, inter alia, to licences in Form L 3, 1,4 and L 5 which relate respectively to i retail vend of foreign liquor in a hotel or dak bungalow, retail valid of foreign liquor in a restaurant and retail vend of foreign liquor in a bar attached to a restaurant.
M. Tarkunde In C.A. Nos.
365/69 V. C. Mahajan In C.A. No.
The High Court negatived all of these companytentions.
Nos, 485/69 .
Those licences were granted to them on acceptance of their bids in the auctions held by the Excise Department, Government of Punjab.
37/69, 2646/68, 2582/68, 1818, 2343, 2875, 2754, 2254, 2256, 2629, 2630, 2753 29 11/68 91/69, 2706 2708, 3084, 2460, 2461, 2644, 2652, 2580, 2581, 2549, 2699, 2501, 2694, 1277 and 2514 of 1968, for the appellants In C. As.
