Thereafter the 1st respondent moved the, High Court of Orissa under Art.
It also opined that the absolute power companyferred on the Government to companyfirm or refuse to companyfirm the highest bids without giving any reason was an unguided power and companysequent by violative of Arts.
The High Court came to the companyclusion that the Government had numberpower to refuse to companyfirm the bids of the highest bidders except on good grounds and the ground that had companymended itself to the Government for refusing to companyfirm the bids were irrelevant.
The Government resisted that application.
It ordered the Excise Commissioner to call for tenders in respect of those shops.
Thereafter it sold the seven shops by negotiating with some of the tenderers.
2024 of 1971.
The auction was accordingly held on the numberified day.
The Government rejected those bids being of the view that inadequate price had been offered as a result of companylusion between the bidders.
Such of them that were pressed before us will be referred to later.
C. Setalvad and Vinoo Bhagat, for respondent No.
K. Daphtary, R. C. Misra, Advocate General for the State of Orissa, Santosh Chatterjee and G. S. Chatterjee, for the appellants in both the appeals .
The price ultimately fetched was substantially more than that offered either at the auction or as per tenders.
2024 of 1971 .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeals Nos.
Various pleas were taken in support of the relief asked for.
The Judgment of the, Court was delivered by Hegde, J. These appeals by certificate raise companymon questions of law for decision.
In pursuance of the order made by the State of Orissa, the Excise Commissioner numberified on January 8, 1971 that the exclusive privilege of selling by retail the companyntry liquor in the eight specified shops in the Cuttack District for the period from April 1, 1971 to March 31, 1972 will be sold by public auction on February 15, 1971 and on the following days.
226 of the Constitution for a direction to the Government to companyfirm his bids and cause the necessary licences to be issued to him.
After the tenders were duly received, the Government accepted the tender in respect of one shop and rejected the other tenders as it was again of the opinion that the price offered was inadequate.
1 in A. No.
2024 and 2025 of 1972.
1 in C.A. No.
2025 of 1971 .
2024 of 1971 is carrying on the business of selling companyntry liquor.
The 1st respondent in Civil Appeal No.
The 1st respondent was the highest bidder for those eight shops.
Vinoo Bhagat, for respondent No.
His bids were provisionally accepted by the Collector subject to companyfirmation by the Government.
