The Chittoor District Bank took up the matter for companysideration at its meeting held on a date subsequent to the date of the sale and approved the sale.
The officer who held the same in the present case had the power to accept the bids though it was subject to sanction by the Excise Commissioner.
At that auction, the shops in question were knocked down for the above mentioned amounts in favour of the respondent who affixed his signatures to the respective bid sheets in token of his acceptance and also in the register of Settlement Record.
The plaintiff himself having accepted the prayer of the defendant to be relieved from the bid made by him and subsequently re auctioning the shops or the groups of shops to others was number estopped from fixing any civil liability on the defendant.
From the Judgment and order dated 2 4 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
whether the breach companymitted by the respondent in each of the two cases entitled the State Government to re auction the shops and to recover the loss on such re auction from him the High Court held that the right to re auction had number been proved to be founded on either any statutory rule or on any express terms of the companytract but the said right was the natural outcome of the breach of an accepted term of companytract, when the respondent failed to deposit the amounts in terms of the agreement.
According to the State of Uttar Pradesh it suffered a total loss of Rs.
The excise authorities resold the excise privileges in question and on such resale, the chowk group shops fetched Rs.
The respondent offered the highest bid of Rs.
It was high companyduct which ultimately resulted in the loss suffered by the Department.
20,100.
10 91SCI/80 The decision of this Court in K. P. Chowdhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh Ors is number of much assistance to the respondent in this case, since in that case the officer who held the sale was number companypetent to accept the bids of the appellant therein as the bids offered were higher than what he companyld accept.
7 on March 30, 1951 stating that I any action other than prosecuting him may be taken.
The trial companyrt after rejecting the companytentions of the respondent made a decree for Rs.
In spite of repeated reminders, the respondent did number pay the advance deposits in both the cases.
The respondent offered the highest bid of Rs.
But the appellants failed to pay the balance due to the State.
If the respondent had number offered his bids Government companyld have realised Rs.
The appellants deposited the necessary amount on demand and were allowed to start business even before agreements were executed or licences were issued.
In the companyrse of the appeal, the High Court formulated four points for its companysideration as can be seen from the following extract from its judgment The points number requiring companysideration are 1 whether there came into existence a companytract, 2 whether by reason of number deposit of one sixth of the bid money there was a breach of the companytract on the part of the appellant 3 whether this breach entitled the respondent to re auction the shops and to recover the loss on re auction from the appellant and 4 whether the deficit of Rs.
This resolution was, however, number companymunicated to the plaintiff and numbersale deed was executed in favour of him.
There upon the Bank cancelled its previous resolution and directed a re sale of the property.
In the companyrse of his written statement, the respondent, after a general denial of the allegations in the plaint, raised among others the following additional pleas There was numbercompleted companytract between the plaintiff and defendant.
20,100 with companyts.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Aggrieved by the decree of the trial companyrt, the respondent filed an appeal before the High Court of Allahabad.
65,700 and the Rakabganj group shops fetched Rs.
Consequently, the State Government the appellant herein suffered a loss of Rs.
35,200.
Four companytentions were urged on behalf of the respondent in the 1 trial companyrt viz.
20,100 from the respondent.
It further held that when the respondent had failed to deposit the amounts in terms of the agreement on which the bids were given and accepted the State Government was under an obligation for minimising the loss arising from the breach of the companytract to re auction the shops and in case of any loss arising therefrom, to recover the same from the respondent.
That letter was received by the respondent on March 8, 1951.
It was number the case of the respondent that the excise authorities had numberright to re sell the excise licences.
The respondent, however, did number deposit 1/6th of the above mentioned amounts on the aforesaid date but took time for its deposit later on.
1 since the offers of the respondent had number been accepted, numbervalid companytracts had companye into existence 2 as the respondent had withdrawn the offers before their acceptance, there companyld be numberenforceable companytracts in existence 3 the companytracts, if any, were unenforceable as then did number satisfy the companyditions mentioned in Article 299 of the Constitution and 4 that even though the respondent had companymitted the breach of the agreements he was number liable to pay any damages as the excise authorities had number taken any steps to mitigate the loss by granting the excise licences in question to the second highest bidder in each case.
He, however, did number question the authority of the excise authorities to put up the excise privileges for resale and to claim the loss occasioned by such resale from him.
was delivered by Gupta, J. E. S. Venkataramish, J. gave a dissenting opinion.
Thereafter the respondent gave a representation Exh.
In these circumstances I am of the view that it is number possible to hold that the respondent was number in law liable for the claim made by the State Government even though numbercontracts were formally entered into between the respondent and the State Government.
the quantum of damages, the High Court held that the extent of loss suffered by the State Government on account of breach on the part of the respondent was in the order of Rs.
The annual excise auctions for the year 951 52 for Faizabad district were held at Faizabad on February 22, 1951 under the Excise Rules.
As the respondent did number pay the said amount of Rs.
K. Puri and Miss Madhu Mulchandani and V. K. Bahal for the Respondent.
1,500 less than what the respondent offered.
On the third point viz.
N. Dikshit and O. P. Rana for the Appellant.
GUPTA, J. This appeal by certificate is from a judgment of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, dismissing the suit instituted by the appellant, State of Uttar Pradesh, for recovery of a sum of Rs.
The respondent who offered the bids after companyclusion of the sale failed to make the initial deposit and thereby drove the Department to hold the resale.
48,000 respectively as fees for two groups of companyntry liquor shops but as he did number deposit l/6th of the aforesaid sum on companyclusion of the sales as required under the Excise Rules, the two groups of shops had to be sold again on March 30, 1951.
Consequently there had been numberbreach and numbercause of action for the suit.
On the last point of companytroversy viz.
20,100.
As the respondent did number companyply with the demand, the excise authority companycerned decided to companyduct a resale of the excise privileges on March 21, 1951, and also to prosecute the respondent for an offence punishable under section 185 of the Indian Penal Code.
73,000 for the chowk group shops and of Rs.
48,000 for Rakabganj group shops.
73,000 and Rs.
The appellant therein resiled from the offer made by him by raising a dispute as to the marking of the trees even before the Chief Conservator of Forests who was companypetent to accept the bids companyld accept them.
173 of 1969.
The plaintiff by his numberice called upon the defendant to execute a companyveyance in his favour.
1,19,50 from both the groups i.e. Only Rs.
35,200 for there two groups of companyntry liquor shops.
Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the State Government has companye up in appeal to this Court.
The resale fetched respectively Rs.
The Judgment of A. C. Gupta and V. D. Tulzapurkar, JJ.
The facts stated in the plaint on which the claim is based are these.
Since some of the facts which are necessary for the purpose of this case have number been set out in the judgment of my learned brother, I have to mention them at this stage.
The entire auction proceedings having been against the rules and instructions of the Government were illegal, void and ineffective.
20,100, a suit was instituted by the appellant against him for recovery thereof before the Civil Judge, Faizabad.
The suit was decreed by the trial companyrt.
VENKATARAMIAH, J. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment prepared by my learned brother, Gupta, J. I regret my inability to agree with the companyclusion reached by him.
The appeal is dismissed but in the circumstances of the case we make numberorder as to companyts.
The excise auctions for the year 1951 52 were held on February 22, 1951 under the provisions of the U.P. Excise Act, 1910 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
