His appeal and representation both were unsuccessful.
Chhoga Lal, however, deposited Rs.
The petition is founded on the following allegations That the petitioners fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor under article 19 1 g had been infringed by the act of the Collector of Excise, in companydoning the failure of the respondent in depositing the whole of the security deposit required under sub rule 8 a of rule 6 of the auction rules within the prescribed time and in number reauctioning the licence under sub rule 9 of rule 6.
The petitioner, when apprised of this irregularity, sent a telegram to the Collector of Excise stating that the sale should number be companyfirmed in favour of Chhoga Lal as he had failed in paying the price according to the rules, and expressing his willingness to take the licence.on the price fetched at that auction sale.
him and Chhoga Lal and had thus abridged the petitioners fundamental right under article It is alleged that if the petitioner had known that the Collector would enlarge the time for the security deposit he would have offered a higher bid.
In spite of this the sale was eventually companyfirmed in his favour by the Minister of Excise.
The petitioner and respondent No.
That in allowing , Chhoga Lal to make the deposit after the expiry of the prescribed time the Collector had discriminated between.
12,000 after the due date and in number ordering a resale.
He claims redress for both these grievances by means of this petition.
Half of the auction price was payable immediately on the provisional acceptance of the bid.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Petition No.
That the Hon.
32 of the Constitution of India.
3, on the 16th March, 1953, held an auction sale of Chang Gate companyntry liquor shop, Beawar, for the year 1953 54 pursuant to the rules framed under Excise Regulation I of 1915.
232 of 1953 under art.
He also preferred an appeal to the Chief Commissioner against the order of the Collector allowing the deposit of Rs.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India PorusA. Mehta, with him for the respondent.
57,000, was declared the highest bidder and the petitioner who was the former licensee was thus unsuccessful in obtaining the companytract to run this liquor shop as hereinbefore.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN C. J. This petition under article 32 of the Constitution of India arises in the following circumstances.
12,000 ,on the 18th March, 1953, i.e., two days after the due date, companytrary to the provisions of sub rule 8 a of rule 6 of the auction rules.
D. Sharma for the petitioner.
January 13.
The Collector of Excise, Ajmer, respondent No.
5, Chhoga La, offered bids at the auction sale.
