Judgment

MAHAJAN C.J.I. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India arises in the following circumstances.

2. The Collector of Excise, Ajmer, respondent No. 3, on the 16th March 1953 held an auction sale of "Change Gate country liquor shop Beawar" for the year 1953-54 pursuant to the rule framed under Excise Regulation I of 1915. The petitioner and respondent No. 5, Chhoga Lal, offered bids at the auction sale. Chhoga Lal, whose bid was in the sum of Rs. 57,000/- was declared the highest bidder and the petitioner who was the former licensee was thus unsuccessful in obtaining the contract to run this liquor shop as hereinbefore. Half of the auction price was payable immediately on the provisional acceptance of the bid. Chhoga Lal, however, deposited Rs. 16,500/- on the 16th March 1953 and the balance of Rs. 12,000/- on the 18th March 1953 and the balance of Rs. 12,000/- on the 18th March 1953, i.e., two days after the due date, contrary to the provisions of sub-rule 8 (a) of Rule 6 of the auction rules. In spite of this the sale was eventually confirmed in his favour by the Minister of Excise.

3. The petitioner, when apprised of this irregularity, sent a telegram to the Collector of Excise standing that the sale should not be confirmed 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. He also preferred an appeal to the Chief Commissioner against the order of the Collector allowing the deposit of Rs. 12,000/- after the due date and in not ordering a resale. His appeal and representation both were unsuccessful. He claims redress for both these grievances by means of this petition.

4. The petition is founded on the following allegations :

(1) That the petitioner s fundamental right to carry on trade or business in liquor under Art. 19 (1) (g) had been infringed by the act of the Colloctor of Excise, in condoning 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 not reauctioning the licence under sub-rule 9 of rule 6.

(2) That is allowing Chhoga Lal to make the deposit after the expiry of the prescribed time the Collector had discriminated between him and Chhoga Lal and had thus abridged the petitioner s fundamental right under Act. 14. 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.

(3) That the Hon. Minister for Excise, respondent No. 2, had no authority under the regulation to confirm the auction sale held by the Collector.

(4) That the summary rejection of his appeal without hearing was not justified and has resulted in the abridgement of his right to carry on his trade.

(5) That the provisions of the Excise Regulation and the auction rules made thereunder were ultra vires as the same purport to grant monopoly of trade to a few persons and are thus inconsistent with Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution and that the provisions of the regulation regarding levy of licence fee with the avowed object of raising a big source of revenue also seriously affected the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Art. 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. On these allegations, the petitioner prayed for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature thereof or a direction or order on respondents Nos. 1 to 4 directing them,

(a) not to levy any duty or fee for the purpose of raising revenues for the benefit of the State by holding auction sales,

(b) not to grant monopoly in the trade to a selected few individuals, but to grant licences freely on application, and

(c) to grant a licence to the petitioner to deal in country liquor with his place of business at or near Chang Gate, Beawar.

In the alternative a mandamus was asked directing the officer concerned either to confirm the next lower bid of the petit