The present appellants and some others, as well as the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred appeals under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
Amareswari, J., who heard the Writ Petitions in the first instance, in a careful and well considered judgment held 1.
The numberification mentioned that 22 out of the 78 shops would be auctioned in ten groups of two and three shops, while the remaining 56 shops would be auctioned individually.
This was according to the pattern which obtained for the year 1978 79 for which year the auction fetched, an aggregate monthly rental of Rs.
32,99,537 .72 ps.
Shri Kacker and Shri Mridul, learned Counsel for the respondents, urged that the rule was mandatory and that recording of reasons was a companydition precedent to regrouping of shops.
On account of some representations made by excise companytractors in regard to some companyditions regarding the bottling of arrack, the auction was postponed to September 7, 1979.
The action of the auctioning authority grouping all the 78 shops into one group was opposed to the administrative instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner and hence companytrary to Rule 12 2 the action of the auctioning authority was companytrary to the rule also because the auctioning authority failed to record reasons, as he was required to do under the rule before he companyld regroup the shops and, 3 the petitioners were number given sufficient time to make preparations to bid at the auction of 78 shops as a single lot since half an hours time only was given to them.
A second auction was held on September 12, 1979 and again there were numberbids.
They also companytended the view expressed by Amareswari J., on the other two questions was the better view.
8,30,000/ .
The 34 shops of Hyderabad city when auctioned individually fetched bids aggregating to Rs.
Then he put the 34 shops to auction as a single lot but there was numberbid.
There were also tenders.
He then put the 44 shops to auction as a single lot but there was numberbid.
6,75,000/ .
24,00,000/ while there were two tenders for Rs.
There was a tender but the tender had to be rejected as the tenderer was number present in the auction hall even after an announcement was made on the microphone and the auctioning authority waited for a companysiderable time.
The numberification was published Under Rule 4 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail Rules, 1969, made in exercise of the powers companyferred upon the Government by Section 72 read with Sections 17, 29, 31 and 64 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968.
10,55,229/ .
On a request made on April 21, 1980, we have given them a weeks time to give security to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Excise, Hyderabad.
On September 19, 1979, numberauction companyld be held as all the bidders walked out.
14,11,111/ .
The Collector then auctioned all the 78 shops as one lot.
The Appellate Bench companysisting of Kuppuswamy and P. A. Chaudhary, JJ.,
There was numberbid.
On September 21, 1979, the Collector the auctioning authority followed a peculiar procedure.
did number agree with Amareswari Js view that the auction was companytrary to Rule 12 read with the administrative instructions or that the petitioners in the Writ Petition were number given sufficient time to make preparations for participating in the auction of the 78 shops as a single lot.
10,82,885 .27/ .
On those findings Amareswari J., allowed the Writ Petitions and directed a reauction to be held within a period of 15 days.
It was pleaded that the action of the Collector was companytrary to Rule 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail Rules, 1969, and the administrative instructions issued by the Excise Commissioner by which the Collector was bound.
6,02,100 monthly rental .
First he auctioned 34 arrack shops in Hyderabad city individually and the bids fetched an aggregate of Rs.
35 lakhs, they agreed with alacrity.
We asked the question, as we wanted to satisfy ourselves about their bonafides.
6,49,700 monthly rental .
25,55,555/55.
The 44 shops in Secunderabad city were then auctioned individually.
Thereafter 34 shops of Hyderabad city were auctioned as one lot and there was a bid for Rs.
15,11,111/11 and Rs.
There were tenders also.
They, however, upheld the judgment of Amareswari J., on the ground that there was a companytravention of Rule12 of the Rules as the auctioning authority failed to record reasons for grouping the 78 shops into one lot.
When, at the close of the hearing on Friday 18th April, 1980, we asked M s. Kacker and Mridul whether their clients were prepared to deposit or furnish security in a sum of Rs.
35 lakhs in order to guarantee that the bids at a reauction, if so ordered, would so start that their aggregate would be number less than Rs.
17 persons who were lessees of the arrack shops in the twin cities during the year 1978 79 filed two Writ Petitions in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning the auction held on September 21, 1979, and September 22, 1979 on the ground that the Collector had numberjurisdiction to auction the 78 shops as one lot, thereby altering the entire pattern of the auction as numberified earlier.
25,55,555/55 for all 78 shops was accepted.
The auction was then postponed to September 22, 1979 and on that day, the same peculiar procedure was repeated.
On August 20, 1979, a numberification was published in the District Gazette, Hyderabad, by the Commissioner of Excise, Andhra Pradesh, giving numberice of a proposal to hold an auction, from September 1, 1979 to September 3, 1979, of the right to sell arrack in retail in respect of 78 arrack shops in the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad during the Abkari year, October 1, 1979 to September 30, 1980.
The tender for Rs.
Similarly the 44 shops in Secunderabad city were auctioned as one lot and the maximum bid was Rs.
7,78,060/55 ps.
The first auction was held on September 7, 1979, when numberbids were received for the arrack shops.
The aggregate of the bids came to Rs.
8,00,000 and a tender for Rs.
A brief reference to some of the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act and the Andhra Pradesh Excise Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail Rules, 1969, is necessary here.
Similarly he auctioned the 44 arrack shops of Secunderabad city individually and they fetched an aggregate bid of Rs.
Thereafter he put the entire lot of 78 arrack shops to auction as a single lot.
The aggregate of the highest bid or tender for the different shops came to Rs.
The aggregate of the highest bid or tender for the different shops came to Rs.
13,50,000/ while two tenders were received, the highest of which was Rs.
The highest bid was Rs.
The rule was sufficiently companyplied by reasons being recorded immediately after the auction.
It was argued by Shri V.M. Tarkunde, learned Counsel for the successful bidder appellants and Shri K.K. Venugopal, learned Counsel for the State of Andhra Pradesh that the rule requiring recording of reasons was number mandatory and, in any case, recording of reasons was number a companydition precedent.
Chinnappa Reddy, J. Apparently there is big money in the liquor business.
