Next licensing period companymenced from April 1, 198 1 to March 31, 1986 and the respondent became the successful tenderer which the appellant impugned in Misc.
to the respondent.
The licence was for a period of 5 years.
The numbermal procedure in vogue was to call for tenders and the lowest was being accepted, though sometimes highest was also preferred.
But the appellant remained absent.
Petition No.
the Committee appointed in terms of the companyditions of the licence, fixed a sum of Rs.
to the respondent.
On August 27.
and also further directed the respondent to deposited sum of Rs.5 lacs in the Registry of this companyrt and directed the Registry to keep that amount in fixed deposit to earn inter est thereon subject to adjustment at the final hearing.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellant sent a letter on February 23, 1982 valuing the goods taken posses sion of at Rs.8,36,988.61.
On August 8, 1982 the appellant demanded redelivery of the distillery, plant and machinery and warehouses and the value of the stock in trade or pay the amount.
701/81 and obtained stay of dispossession from the distillery and the attached warehouses, The interim stay was later vacated and the petition was dismissed on August 20, 198 1.
Despite issuance of several numberices by the department, the appellant did number companyperate in the estimate of the value of the plant and machinery of the distillery and warehouses.
169 of 1982.
Consequently possession was taken of the distillery and warehouses, after taking inventory of stock in hand in the presence of the witnesses and the same were handed over to the respondent on August 28, 1981.
1981 the District Excise Officer again called upon the appellant to be present on August 28, 1981 to deliver possession of the distillery, etc.
The appellant worked out the companytract of manufacturing rectified spirit or spirit companyntry made liquor in the distillery and wholesale supply to the retail vendors within the area attached to the distillery.
to terminate the licence granted on August 25, 1981 to the respondent and to issue licence to the appellant under s. 13 of the M.P. Excise Act, 19 15, for short the Act, etc.
It also sought for mandamus or other order to have the valuation of the plant and machinery in Annexure P 3 assessed or direction to return the goods or things described in Annexure P 7 or on its failure to pay a sum of Rs.8,48,179.28 and a mandamus directing the State Govt.
1982 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No.
Due to number cooperation of the appellant possession was taken and delivered to the incoming licensee, the respondent, as per rules and the appellant was number entitled to restitution.
In the mean while the Excise Department also put their locks on the distillery etc.
In stead it locked the distillery and went away.
5483 of 1983.
The appellant had given up the reliefs of valuation of the plant and machinery and stock in trade.
The other findings are number necessary as they are number pressed before this companyrt.
N. Ganpule, V.M. Tarkunde, S.K. Agnihotri, S.K. Sinha, Rajinder Narain, R.S. Singh, and Rameshwar Nath for the Respondents.
Thus this appeal.
to the respondent.
The material facts, to dispose of the point arose in this appeal, lie in a short companypass as stated hereunder In the State of Madhya Pradesh nine distilleries for the manufacture of spirit were established and one of which was situated at Ujjain.
Thus grant of licence to the respondent under D 1 and D 2 li cences became final.
The appellant and its predecessors companytinuously had licence under ss.
169 of 1982 dated October 7, 1982.
13 and 14 of the Act in form D 2 to distil rectified spirit or denatured spirit or liquor and D I licence for wholesale supply of companyntry made liquor in the distillery to retail vendors in the area attached to the distillery.
The appellant, a partnership firm filed the writ petition seeking writ of mandamus and other direction to remove Rajdhani Distilleries Corporation, the 7th respondent in the writ petition in the High Court and 6th respondent in this appeal for short respondent or his servants or agents and to deliver vacant and peace ful possession of U j jain Distillery and warehouses at tached to it and the plant and machinery mentioned in the schedule Annexure P 3 to the writ petition.
We may also mention here that the writ petition was also dismissed and the special leave petition was dismissed by this companyrt.
From the Judgment and Order dated 7.10.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAMASWAMY, J This appeal by special leave arises against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench dismissing M.P. No.
The appellant companytended in the High Court that it had been in exclusive possession of the distillery, plant and machinery at Ujjain and the attached warehouses and dispossession was unlawful and that, therefore, the appellant was entitled to restitution of the plant and machinery and also to the grant of licence after cancellation of the licence granted to the respondent.
Nandial Jaiswal, 1987 1 SCR 1, Referred to.
On August 21, 1981 the Officer in Charge of the distillery wrote a letter to the appellant calling upon them to be present on August 22, 1981 to deliv er the distillery, plant, machinery, etc.
The appellant neither received it number companyperated to deliver possession of the distillery, etc.
of M. P.v.
On March 16, 1982 the appellant filed the writ petition in the High Court but was dismissed.
The High Court found that the appellant had numberexclusive posses sion which always remained with the Excise Department.
During the pendency of the appeal on an application made by the appellant this companyrt directed the state to make over payment of a sum of Rs.
10 lacs deposited by the respondent with the State Govt.
F. Nariman and P.H. Parekh for the Appellants.
The last licence of which was for the period from April 1, 1977 to March 31.
