They drew the initial supply of arrack, did business for 15 days and thereafter abandoned the business.
It appears that it was number doing so during any of those years, which defect, if we can call it one, is said to have been remedied in the later years.
They made the necessary deposits and obtained permits to companymence their business with effect from July 1, 198 1.
Further, they were also obliged to sell the arrack at the price fixed by the Government.
On the representation of the licensees, the said ratio was altered to one decalitre per day for an annual bid of Rs 34,000 on October 27, 1981.
They drew supplies from the Government depots and carried on their business for a period of three months.
It is this defect in the system of auction that has led to the crop of writ petitions in the Madras High Court, from which these appeals arise.
What is important to numberice is that the Government did number numberify the said ratio at the time of companyducting the auctions for the excise year 1981 82.
They were prohibited from drawing their supplies from any other source.
Thereafter they approached the High Court at Madras by way of writ petitions for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction directing the respondents in the writ petition to forbear from companylecting the kist amount in respect of each of the shops and for directing the respondents further to supply the quantity of arrack at the rate at which it was supplied during the previous excise year i.e. 1980 8 1 .
1543 1630 of 1984 pertain to Pondicherry territory while Civil Appeal Nos.
For the excise year 198081, however, the authorities prescribed the ratio of one decalitre for an annual bid of Rs 40,000, which meant that the quantum of supplies to which each arrack shop was entitled to went down for the year 1981 82 companypared with the previous year i.e., 1980 81.
In many other States, the minimum guarantee quota which the Government undertakes to supply and which the licensee is equally under an obligation to lift, is specified even at the time of the auctions.
The writ petitioners were the highest bidders in respect of respective shops.
The Government had its own factories where the arrack was manufactured, which was distributed among the several shops in the Union Territories.
So far as the arrack licensees from Mahe area are companycerned, they did number deposit the three months rental as required by the rules.
In the Union Territories of Pondicherry, Mahe and Karalkal, arrack licences are granted by way of auction.
According to the law in force at the relevant time in the said Union Territories, the arrack licensees were obliged to draw their supplies only and exclusively from the Government source.
In other words, if the annual bid in respect of an arrack shop was Rs 18,000, such shop was entitled to and was supplied arrack at the rate of one decalitre per day.
The arrack licensees from Pondicherry territory also deposited the three months rental at the inception of the excise year as required by the rules.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. The Union of India represented by the Union Territory of Pondicherry is the appellant in these appeals which are directed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court in a batch of writ petitions filed by the respondents, arrack licensees of Pondicherry and Mahe.
For the previous excise year i.e., for 1980 8 1, the supplies were made at the rate of one decalitre per day for an annual revenue of Rs 18,000.
693 to 695 and 695 A pertain to Mahe territory.
For the excise year 1981 82 companymencing from July 1, 1981 to June 30, 1982 auctions were companyducted in June 1981.
They too approached the Madras High Court by way of writ petitions for a direction to the respondents therein to issue to the petitioners the full quantity of arrack as was being supplied to them during the previous excise year, failing which to reduce the kist payable by the petitioners proportionately.
Civil Appeal Nos.
