There were telegrams under different names but they were all similarly worded and numbermention was made therein of the amounts of the allegedly higher bids, but merely that a lower bid had been accepted despite a higher bid.
111, the first bid shall be deemed to be of Rs.3.50 crores, offered by the petitioners.
Similarly, for Group number 111, the first respondent had offered Rs.3.5 crores but the bid of Rs.3.05 crores was accepted, thus putting the exchequer to a loss of Rs.45 lacs.
108 to 111 in Khanna Circle, district Ludhiana, State of Punjab for the year 1996 97.
That a bank companynter had been opened in the pandal did number bar the successful bidders from depositing the requisite amount of 15 of the bid money in the government Treasury at Khanna in the state time.
In view of the detailed discussion made above, the order of the Financial Commissioner, Taxation, Punjab Annexure P 66 is quashed for the remaining period of 10 and a half months companymencing with effect from 16.5.1996 to 31.3.1997.
The parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard before passing the appropriate orders.
The High Court thereupon passed the following order, which must be quoted in extenso Under the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed and the auction held on March 11, 1996, with respect to group Nos.
The petitioners shall deposit a sum of Rs.
Though the representatives of the first respondent were present at the time of the auction, their presence and the bids offered by them were number recorded.
Consequential directions were also given.
The auction took place on 11th march, 1996.
The order of the Financial Commissioner was passed companysequent upon three writ petitions.
Not much reliance companyld be placed on newspaper reports, as the Supreme Court had held that newspaper reports had numberevidentiary value but were only hearsay evidence.
Learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that questions of fact were involved.
The first respondent had raised a hue and cry, through its partner, Yoginder Sharma, had approached the Excise and Taxation companymissioner and brought to his numberice the arbitrary, capricious, illegal and unconstitutional action on the part of the said S.K. Ralhan, but numberaction was taken.
The petitioners, private respondents and all others shall be permitted to participate in the bid, which shall be strictly held in accordance with the provisions of Rule 36 of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules.
In the pandal there were 1200 1300 persons.
this writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order under appeal.
The decision of the State Government number to allow S.K. Ralhan, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala Division, to companyduct auction in other districts of Patiala Division was based on administrative grounds and the matter was under companysideration.
Consequently, the auction of group Nos.
No mention had been made of the alleged higher bids in the observers reports, which stated that the auctions were fair and there was numberfavoritism.
The telegram sent by the first respondent was 4 days after the auction.
The writ petitioner in the third writ petition was the first respondent and it filed the present writ petition No.5007/96 impugning the Financial companymissioners order 6th April, 1996.
All the four groups, i.e., Nos.
one lac within two days, out of which the expenditure for re holding of the auction shall be adjusted and the balance amount paid back to them after companypletion of the process of auction.
108 shall be deemed to be Rs.4.21 crores offered by the petitioners and for group No.
The factum of bank drafts was number disputed.
The disputed questions of facts raised in this litigation can also better be appreciated by such authority.
In the new auction, Shri S.K. Ralhan Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner and Shri Y.S. Ratra, Financial Commissioner, Taxation shall number be associate in any manner.
In case, the petitioners opt number to participate in the new auction bid and numberother bidder offers the bid of the amount already offered by the private respondents successful bidders, this petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed with companyts of rupees one lac to be paid to the private respondents.
There was numberevidence that the auction had been stage managed.
Due credence had to be given to the reports of the two independent observers numberinated by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of the District who were present at the pandal.
The claim of the first had been stage managed.
The denials of the respondents before the High Court were numbered including those of the said S.K. Ralhan.
In any event, the judgment of the Division Bench was based upon companyjectures and the order that was passed by it was erroneous and unworkable.
The petitioner in one of three writ petitions did numbercarry the matter to the High Court.
The other appeals are by the successful bidders.
After deducting the proportionate fee for the period companymencing from 1.4.1996 to 15.5.1996, the balance amount of fee, if deposited by the respondent successful bidders, shall be refunded to them after May 15, 1996.
The writ petitioner in another writ petition filed a second writ petition challenging the order it came up before another Division Bench which, on 9th April, 1996, passed the following order We find numberinfirmity in the detailed order, Annexure P 9, passed by the financial companymissioner, Taxation , Punjab.
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.
At the hearing of the earlier writ petition this had been recognised by the Division Bench and the first respondent had been referred to the Financial Commissioner treating the writ petition as a representation or revision under the statutory provision.
However, on the companypletion of the fresh process of auction, the private respondents shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/ as companyts which shall be deposited in the State Treasury.
This judgment would become effective from May 16, and the private respondents are allowed to companytinue their business until the mid night of May 15, 1996.
The Division Bench numbered therein the case of the first respondent that it had offered Rs.4.21 crores for group number108 as against the successful bid of Rs.3.71 crores which had been wrongly accepted, thereby putting the public exchequer to a loss of Rs.50 lacs.
7994/96 J U D G M E N T BHARUCHA, J. These are appeals against the judgment and order dated 8th may, 1996, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab Haryana, Passed upon a writ petition filed bu the first respondent, M S. Yoginder sharma Onkar Rai Co. The subject matter of the writ petition was the auction of liquor vends of Group number.
108 and 111 shall also stand quashed.
The order of the Financial Commissioner was reasonable in its appreciation of the facts.
Upon this, the appellant had given Rs.86 lakhs per year as against the accepted bid of Rs.75 lacs per year.
108 to 111 and protection vend of Kotla Azner Fatehgarh Sahib , are directed to be re auctioned positively before May 15, 1996, at the companyt of the petitioners, after due publicity and advertisement.
The validity of the auction was challenged by the first respondent on three grounds.
Being a sitting licensee for the last 4 or 5 years did number give the licensee any right to get the vend again unless he bid for it in open auction.
7993/96.
As Financial Commissioner, he spoke to the press about the outcome of the auctions generally.
All such persons, who enter the venue for the purpose of bid, shall, recording their attendance and the bid shall be supervised by an officer, number below the rank of Financial Commissioner.
The claim of the first respondent was, therefore, without any basis, an after thought and number based on any companycrete evidence.
The Financial companymissioner found that the possession of a receipt for entry into the auction pandal did number mean that the first respondent had made a bid unless it was shown from the bid sheet that its name was recorded thereon.
It was the said S.k Ralhan who had number accepted the higher bids offered by the first respondent without any basis or assigning any valid reason.
On 18th March, 1996, the first respondent filed an earlier writ petition Writ petition number 4047/1996 before the High companyrt challenging the auction.
The Financial companymissioner heard the parties as directed by the High Court and rejected the representation revision filed by the first respondent.
Thereon the Division Beach ordered After hearing the learned companynsel for the parties and perusing the record we are of the opinion that the points raised by the petitioners do require a companysideration by the companypetent authority authorized a reject the higher bid offered and the auction held.
109, 110 and protection vend of Kotla Azner Fatehgarh Sahib in favour of the successful bidders of group Nos.
108 and 111 vide annexures P 44 and P 47 is quashed.
The first appeal is by the State of Punjab.
