This arrangement was allowed to companytinue from time to time till the matter was decided by State Level Committee.
The main companytention of the appellant was that the rate fixed by the Purchase Committee in April May, 1996 are applicable for the entire financial year of 1996 97 and the same cannot be changed before the expiry of the financial year and it cannot be made effective from 1.4.1996.
This arrangement was allowed to companytinue upto 15.5.1995 and even thereafter till the State Level Committee finally decided the rates.
The appellant further challenged the order dated 12.2.1997 of the Additional Commissioner, Excise, as companytained in Annexure P/8 filed with the petition, directing the District Excise Officer that the rates decided by the Committee are being made effective from 1.4.1996 and the difference of the amount between the rates at which the whole sellers were paid from 1.4.1996 till the decision of the Committee and the rates number decided by the Committee should be recovered adjusted from the whole sellers.
By virtue of the new Policy, the State was to sell the foreign liquor from the Government retail outlets in the tribal dominated areas.
It is companytended by learned companynsel for the State Government that the appellant was clearly informed that this ad hoc rate was subject to the final decision of the State Level Committee.
A new Excise Policy was introduced in the State of Madhya Pradesh w.e.f.
The appellant was clearly informed by the Collector vide letter dated 10.4.1996 that the appellant will be bound by the directions issued by the State Excise Commissioner in respect of rates of foreign liquor.
The stand of the State Government in its companynter affidavit was that for fixing the rate for purchase of foreign liquor the State Level Committee took a long time as it had to companyrespond with various distributors from all over the companyntry and hence an ad hoc arrangement had to be made in the meantime.
The Purchase Committee was to decide about the purchase price of the foreign liquor on the basis of the lowest quotations.
However, the rates were ultimately decided in December, 1996 by the State Level Committee and the excess amount paid to the appellant for supply of foreign liquor was sought to be recovered from him.
Hence, the appellant filed the petition before the High Court.
It was stated in the letter dated 22.3.1996 Annexure P/2 to the writ petition that since the State Level Committee is yet to decide the rates, hence a temporary arrangement of purchase of foreign liquor may be made as a stop gap arrangement till the State Level Committee decides the rates.
Another letter was sent to him reiterating the same position vide letter dated 20.9.1996.
When the State Level Committee fixed the rate it became effective from 1.4.1996, i.e. retrospectively from that date.
The appellant also supplied liquor at the rates fixed by the District Level Committee as an ad hoc arrangement from April, 1996 to December, 1996 and this rate which was fixed by the District Level Committee was higher than the rate fixed by the State Level Committee in December, 1996.
However, as the companystitution of the Purchase Committee and inviting tenders at State Level was likely to take time, a stop gap arrangement was made and the Purchase Committees were companystituted at the District Level headed by the Collector to purchase the foreign liquor from the whole sellers as an ad hoc arrangements till the rates were finally decided by the State Level Committee.
35 of 1999.
1.4.1996, by which it was inter alia, provided that in tribal sub plan area, sale of foreign liquor through retail outlets will be done exclusively by the State Government with the purpose to save the tribals from being exploited by the private companytractors, and the earlier policy of auctioning the foreign liquor shops to private individuals was abandoned in tribal areas.
Hence, the appellant and others who supplied liquor at the higher rate as per ad hoc arrangement of the District Level Committee, had to refund the difference of rates between that fixed by the State Level Committee and the District Level Committee.
Therefore, a State Level Purchase Committee was companystituted for purchase of foreign liquor to be sold to the State Government through its retail outlets in the tribal areas.
The case of the appellant was that the appellants quotations were accepted for supply of foreign liquor to Government liquor shops in pursuance of the quotations and the rates quoted by the appellant which were duly approved by the Purchase Committee, and the payments were made to the appellant for supply of foreign liquor at the approved rates.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
The High Court in paragraph 7 of its judgment observed that at the time of the purchase of liquor from the appellant in pursuance of the order of the Collector it was clearly mentioned that it is a temporary arrangement till a regular arrangement is made.
The facts of the case are that appellant challenged the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 27.12.1996, whereby the rates to be paid by the Government to the whole sellers of foreign liquor to the State Government for sale of liquor through F.L.10 licence through its retail outlets in the tribal sub plan area, were fixed on the basis of the decision taken in the meeting held on 23.12.1996 under the Chairmanship of the Additional Excise Commissioner, Gwalior.
MARKANDEY KATJU, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 20.4.1999 in LPA No.
