The petitions were allowed by a single order dated the 9th May, 1967 passed by D.K. Mahajan, J., on the sole ground that a similar petition Civil Writ Petition No.
2021 of 1966 had been allowed by Gurdev Singh, J., on the 27th March, 1966.
1 in each of the two appeals and who carries on business of selling companyntry liquor either in his own name or in the name and style of M s. Ajudhia Nath Bal Mukand a business companycern arrayed as respondent No.
Excise Taxation Commissioner and Others which was followed in Shyam Lal v. State of Punjab The announcement of companyditions governing the auctions was in the nature of an invitation to an offer to those who were interested in the sale of companyntry liquor.
2 in both the appeals was directed to dispose of the cases of the respondents in accordance with law after hearing the petitioners.
D.K. Mahajan, J., adopted all the reasons on which Gurdev Singh, J., had based his order above mentioned.
A grouse was also made by him of the fact that the applications claiming relief had been decided without affording to him an opportunity of being heard.
It is against the judgment of the Division Bench which is dated the 29th August, 1969 that each of the appeals before us has been filed.
The bids given in the auctions were offers made by prospective vendors to the Government.
One of those petitions Civil Writ Petition No.
From the order dated the 25th July, 1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA Nos.
The successful bidders were then granted licences evidencing the terms of companytract between them and the Government, under which they became entitled to sell liquor.
The licensee started his liquour selling business in the said seven villages on the 1st April, 1965.
2021 of 1966 had proceeded merely on the ground that the petitioner firm therein had number been given an opportunity of being heard in relation to the demand numberice issued to it for payment of the still head duty on the entire minimum quantity of liquor which that firm was required to lift under the licence.
Not satisfied with the relief so granted Ajudhianath filed two petitions under article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana claiming, inter alia, that still head duty was an excise duty which companyld be levied only on manufacture of goods and which he was number liable to pay by reason of the admitted fact that he was number a manufacturer of liquor.
1376 of 1961 decided on March 12, 1968 .
The licensees exploited the respective licences for a portion of the period of their currency, presumably in expectation of a profit.
Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the 4 appellants to the Division Bench of the High Court were summarily dismissed by Mehar Singh and Tuli, JJ.,
As pointed out in Balbir Singhs case supra the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J., in Civil Writ Petition No.
On such acceptance, the companytract between the bidders and the Government became companycluded and a binding agreement came into existence between them.
The proceedings for the recovery of the short fall in the deposit of still head duty by Ajudhia Nath which had been initiated by the State of Punjab and its companycerned officers appellants Nos.
1665 of 1970 was the highest bidder for the auctions pertaining to 5 villages situated in the district of Amritsar and a companyple of villages in Ferozepur district.
for the reason that a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of Gurdev Singh, J., above mentioned had met the same fate.
This argument overlooks the significant difference between the rules struck down in Bhajan Lals case and in Jage Rams case and the amended Rules number in force.
2 in Civil Appeal No.
He made applications claiming relief in the matter of payment of sums which had fallen due and such relief was granted to him in part by the Excise Taxation Commissioner, Punjab, on the ground that sales of companyntry liquor had been adversely affected by reason of the movement of population in the border areas of Punjab on account of the hostilities which broke out between India and Pakistan in the month of September 1965.
Licences to run liquor vends in various parts of Punjab during the financial year 1965 66 were sold by public auction shortly before the 1st April, 1965.
Under the old Rule 36 23 A still head duty which was admittedly in the nature of excise duty was payable by the licencee even on quota number lifted by him.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
1 to 4 in each of the appeals before us were quashed and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Punjab appellant No.
2034 of 1966 related to vends functioning in the two villages of Ferozepur District, while the other Civil Writ Petition Nos 2035 of 1966 companyered the 5 vends located in the 5 villages of Amritsar District.
230 240 of 1968.
The Governments acceptance of those bids was the acceptance of willing offers made to it.
The resulting deficiency in the amount of security shall be made good by the licensee within 7 days of such adjustment.
Accordingly the auctions were sanctioned in his favour and he was granted the necessary licences under the relevant provisions of the Punjab Excise Act hereinafter referred to as the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL J. By this judgment we shall dispose of Civil Appeals Nos.
Tirath Singh Munjral, G.K. Arora, S.S. Munjral and Gautam Bannerjee for the Respondents in both the appeals.
Ajudhia Nath who figures as respondent No.
Auctions were held at numerous places subject to identical companyditions which were supplied to the bidders in writing.
1665 and 1666 of 1970.
The facts leading to the two appeals are undisputed and may be briefly stated thus.
S. Dhillon for the Appellant in both the appeals.
1042 and 1043 of 1968 decided on August 21, 1972 , that there is numbermaterial difference between the rules and the procedure adopted in the instant cases and those which were struck down in Bhajan Lals case and therefore, the rules and the procedure followed herein must also be struck down for the same reasons.
1665 and 1666 of 1970 in which companymon questions of law have arisen for determination by this Court.
8 above extracted.
In differing with the view expressed by Gurdev Singh, J., this Court made a reference to the following observations of Chandrachud, J., as he then was in Har Shanker and Others v. The Dy.
