2,46,000.00 The difference between the amount which the respondents were liable to pay under their bid and the amount realised in the reauction companyes to Rs.
20,000 at the time when the Writ Petition was filed, as also on the date of the proposed appeal.
On July 18, respondents filed the present Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the legality of the aforesaid numberice.
On May 22, 1967 respondents filed a Writ Petition No.
1376/67.
On the bid being knocked in their favour, respondents deposited a sum of Rs.
It has given to the appellants a certificate to appeal to this Court under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution since the subject matter in dispute was of the value of more than Rs.
15 ii of the auction read with Rule 36 23 2 , to pay the licence fee in 22 equal instalments, each instalment being payable before the 10th and 25th of every month, companymencing on April On the failure of the respondents to pay the instalments due for the periods ending with April 10 and 25, 1967, the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rohtak, gave them numberices dated 15th and 25th April, 1967 calling upon them to make good the short fall of Rs.
33,827.20 and Rs.
1507/1969.
10,92,960.00.
21 8 72, the High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the order cancelling the respondents licence and calling upon them to pay the difference between the amount payable by them under their bid and the amount realised in the reauction of the vend.
20,000 at the time when the Writ Petition was filed, as also on the date of the proposed appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD 1.
By their reply dated May 12, 1967, the respondents stated that they were illiterate villagers, that the terms of auction were number explained to them, that the district of Rohtak was in the grip of a severe drought leading to a fall in the sale of liquor, that April being a summer month, the companysumption of liquor was less as companypared with the companysumption during winter months and that, there was in fact numberdefault on their part as alleged in the numberice sent to them.
On July 11, 1967 respondents were served with a numberice dated July 7 by which they were called upon to pay the aforesaid amount, failing which, they were warned, the amount was liable to be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
The terms and companyditions in regard to the auction of retail vends of companyntry spirits were set out in a pamphlet issued along with the numberice.
In pursuance of the order dated May 17, the Biswan Meel vend, Sonepat, was reauctioned on May 23, 1967, the highest bid received being of 15,000 litres, which in terms of money companyes to Rs.
900 of 1967 which was dismissed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on May 26, on the ground that it was premature.
Journal, p. 460, which was affirmed by this Court in CA 1042 and 1043/68 dt.
1 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J. This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana under Article 133 1 a of the Constitution in regard to its judgment dated March 12, 1968 in Civil Writ No.
The Court remanded the case for a finding on the following two questions 1 Whether it was necessary according to the rules in force at the relevant time to give adequate publicity to the reauction and 2 if so, when such publicity was in fact given to the reauction on May 23, 1967 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
15 1 of the auction and Rule 36 22 A of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 as amended.
They started operating the vend from April 1, 1967.
On May 17, 1967, the Collector and Deputy Excise Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, passed an order, after hearing the respondents, cancelling their licence under section 36 b and c of the Punjab Excise Act with immediate effect and stating that the vend will be resold on May 23, 1967 at 10.00 A.M. in the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Rohtak, at the risk of the respondents.
Ravinder Rana and M. N. Shroff for the Appellants.
On March 16, 1967 the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana, appellant No.
The amended rules issued by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner Financial Commissioner were published in the Government Gazette dated March 31, 1967 and came into effect on April 1, 1967.
5,898.80 respectively, before April 20 and April 30, 1967.
From the Judgment and Order dated 12 3 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No.
N. Kacker Sol.
Tirath Singh Munjral, H. K. Puri and V. K. Bahl for Respondent No.
Since the respondents did number pay the amount, the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Headquarters, Haryana, gave them a numberice calling upon them to show cause, within two days of the receipt of the numberice, why their licence should number be cancelled under section 36 c of the Punjab Excise Act, for their failure to companyply with the terms of the auction in the matter of payment of the two instalments.
The successful bidder who is granted licence for retail sale of companyntry liquor is required by companydition No.
45,527.50, being 1/24th of the total amount payable by them, by way of security for the due performance of the terms of the auction, as required by companydition No.
7,41,577.40.
Those terms and companyditions did number accord with the rules then prevailing but were evidently announced so as to companyply with the requirement of the new rules which were being brought into force.
Genl.,
17,60 per litre, that is to say, Rs.
1376 of 1967.
In the auction held on March 27, 1967 for the retail vend known as Biswan Meel, Sonepat, respondents offered the highest bid for a quota of 62,100 proof litres for which they became liable, under companydition 14 iii of the auction, to pay an amount calculated at the rate of Rs.
