On September 27, the Court passed an order restraining the respondents from forfeiting the deposits made by the appellant.
By a telegram dated September 18, the excise companymissioner instructed the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga, to direct the tahsildars of Raichur and Gulbarga to issue licences to respondent No.
The order dated June 26, 1968 Ex.
2088 of 1968 for quashing the orders of the divisional companymissioner dated May 28, and June 4, whereby the appellants tender was accepted and for a mandamus directing the acceptance of his next highest tender under r. 17 4 .
2085 of 1968.
On June 30, the divisional companymissioner granted licences to him.
The appellant deposited about Rs.
Under r. 19 2 the appellant was required to deposit another one months rent within 15 days from the date of the sale.
By June 15, the appellant deposited in all Rs.
Jr and for the grant of licences to him to vend liquors in the companybined groups of shops in Raichur and Gulbarga ,districts and for other reliefs.
Respondents 1 and 2 ire directed to grant immediately licences to the appellant to vend liquors in the companybined groups of shops in Raichur and Gulbarga districts for the remaining period of the year 1968 1969.
On the same date licences were issued to respondent No.
J , the divisional companymissioner rejected the application for extension of time and cancelled the sale starting that 1 the appellant did number at one apply in writing, for licences in accordance with r. 19 1 2 though he deposited two months rent as required by r. 19 2 , he did number file a statement of his immovable properties in accordance with r. 19 1 and should therefore be, companysidered as a person of doubtful solvency 3 he was, therefore, required to deposit another 2 months rent under r. 19 3 i and to furnish securities for six months rental or surety under r. 1 9 3 ii and iii 4 he failed to companyply with r. 19 in spite of numberices dated June 6 and June 19 5 the circular issued by the excise companymissioner was opposed to r. 19 and companyld number be acted upon 6 that even under the circular he was required to give two months companylateral security in addition to 4 months cash deposit if he was a person, of doubtful solvency and 7 that the sale companyducting,officer has numberpower to extend the time for companypliance with the formalities On June 28, the appellant filed writ petition No.
On September 25, the appellant filed a stay application in this Court.
J, it was number necessary to set aside the order accepting and companyfirming his bid.
Subsequently the High Court ,confirmed the stay order on companydition that the appellant would deposit another two months rent.
On July 1, he companymenced his business in all the 1168 shops.
Respondents 1 and 2 are also directed to cancel forthwith the licences issued to respondent No.4 on his companyplying with certain companyditions.
4 on or about September 18.
1889 of 1968.
On these findings the High Court dismissed W.P. No.
Thereafter he ,duly deposited about Rs.
Narsaraju, M. C. Chagla, R. V. Pillai, Subodh Markendya and M. Narayana Reddy, for the appellant.
9,99,999/ towards the monthly rental of the shops and deposited the requisite earnest money amounting to Rs.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated September 17, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Writ Petition No.
40 lakhs the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga, acted rather precipitately and harshly in cancelling the sale.
On May 27, the appellant made a tender offering Rs.
The High Court held that under r. 17 4 it was number obligatory on the officer companyducting the sale to accept the next highest offer of respondent No.
K. V. Niranjan also filed W.P. No.
The appellant was the only bidder present at the auction on May 28.
C. Setalvad, B. R. L. Iyengar and S. P. Nayar, for respondents Nos.
1889 of 1968 on his own application under an order of the High Court dated July 7.
14 and 19 of the Constitution.
4 in P. No.
The state government, the excise commissioner and the divisional companymissioner filed separate affidavits disputing the appellants companytentions.
20,00,000/ in accordance with the order.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat J. This appeal raises the question of the legality of the cancellation of the sale to the appellant of the exclusive privilege of retail vend of toddy and arrack for the year 1968 69 in a group of 1168 shops in Raichur and Gulbarga districts under the Mysore Excise Act, 1965 and the Mysore Excise Disposal of Privileges of Retail Vend of Liquors Rules, 1967.
On May 10, 1968 the excise companymissioner of Mysore published a numberice stating that the exclusive privilege would be sold by tender cum auction by the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga on May 28 and inviting tenders by May 27.
A.I.R. 1949 Mad.
The numberice dated.
14 and 19, and the appellant was estopped from challenging it 3 the circular of the excise companymissioner companyld number modify r. 19 the appellant companyld number rely on the circular as he came to know of it long after the sale, number had he companyplied with its terms by depositing the entire four months rent before June 12 4 the appellant was a benamidar for other person or persons and in view of r. 12 was incompetent to bid and 5 the, order dated June 26 Ex.
By a letter Ex.
1 3 3 1 b of the Constitution.
1 to 3.
by two months.
A numberice to the same effect was given orally on June 19, when he met the divisional companymissioner at Bellary.
His offer being the highest was accepted by the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga, under r. 17 1 .
4 V. Niranjan made a tender offering Rs.
appellant submitted a petition to the divisional companymissioner stating that he had companyplied with the terms of r. 19 and the circular, that abrupt cancellation of the sale would result in irreparable injury and that in any event the time to deposit the balance two, months rental be extended for a reasonable time.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil.
39,99,996/ amounting to 4 months rent.
1,85,168/ as required by r. 7 f .
On September 19, the High Court dismissed an application for stay of operation of its order dated September 17, and on the same day granted to the appellant a certificate under Art.
Respondent No.
June 19 was received by the appellant on June, 23.
K. V. Niranjan filed an affidavit stating that the appellant was a benamidar for other persons and the acceptance of his tender was forbidden by r. 12.
On June 28, the High Court admitted the writ petition and ,directed the state government to stay further proceedings and to issue licences to the appellant.
K. Nambyar, Shivaswamy and R. Gopalakrishnan, for respondent No.
1889 of 1968.
On June 6, the deputy companymissioner, Gulbarga, issued a numberice asking the appellant to make deposits according to r. 19 immediately and to obtain licences from the companycerned tahsil officers after companypleting other formalities.
By an order dated June 26, Ex.
On June 25, he wrote to the divisional companymissioner stating, that he had companyplied with the companyditions of the rules read with the, circular and was entitled to the licences, that he had reason to believe that necessary orders would be passed by the state government on his petition under s. 62 and that if necessary, the terms for companypliance with the requirements of r. 19 be extended.
Appeal No.
On June 18/19 he applied to the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga, for the issue of licences.
On the same date the divisional companymissioner, rejected the application for extension of time, and issued a numberice to the appellant asking him to show cause before June 26,why in view of the number compliance with the numberices dated June 6 and 19, the sale should number be cancelled and the deposits already made should number be forfeited to the government.
The appellant submitted that 1 he had companyplied with the rules read with the cir cular 2 he did number file any statement of his immovable properties under r. 19 1 as he had immovable properties in Andhra Pradesh 3 as there was numberinquiry number, finding by any tahsildar ,that he was of doubtful solvency r. 19 3 was number attracted 4 ,the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga, was number companypetent to ask for deposits and security under r. 19 3 , number was he companypetent to pass an order cancelling the sale and 5 r. 19 3 was violative of Arts.
9,69,999/ towards the monthly rental.
June 19, the divisional companymissioner, issued a numberice to the appellant stating that as he had number submitted a solvency certificate of his property or the property of his sureties he was required to deposit the balance to make up six months rent as required by r. 19 3 i and to furnish security for six months rental or sureties as require by r. 19 3 ii and iii by June 25, and that in default action would be taken under r. 20 2 .
8,14,831/ which together with the earnest money made up one months rent as required by r. 17 5 .
In view of the subsequent writ petition the government did number pass any orders on this petition.
On June 22, he presented a petition under s. 62 to the, state government asking for the issue of licences, as he had companyplied with the companyditions of the circular.
J was valid.
2095 of 1968.
The appellant deposited another sum of Rs.
The numberice was served on his advocate on June 25 at 7.40 p.m. On June 26, the.
15 7 5 issued by the excise companymissioner on December 12, 1967 and asked for permission to obtain licences from the deputy companymissioners of Raichur and Gulbarga.
On June 4, the divisional companymissioner, Gulbarga, companyfirmed the sale under r. 17 1 .
B 1 the appellant informed the excise companymissioner that he had deposited 4 months rent as required by circular No.
2085 of 1968 the High Court said that as the sale to the appellant had been cancelled by Ex.
The rival tenderer, K. V. Niranjan was added as respondent No.
The two writ petitions were heard together and were dismissed by the High Court by a companymon judgment delivered on September 17.
With regard to W.P. No.
30,00,000/ on account of rent for the months of July, August and September.
1889 of 1968 against the State of Mysore and others in the High ,Court of Mysore for quashing the order dated June 26, Ex.
