Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The case concerns the legality of the cancellation of the sale of the exclusive privilege of retail vend of toddy and arrack for 1168 shops in Raichur and Gulbarga Districts to the appellant, P. Bhooma Reddy. (!) (!)
• The appellant made a tender offering the highest amount (Rs. 9,99,999/-) and deposited the requisite earnest money and additional sums to cover one month's rent as required by the Rules. (!)
• The Divisional Commissioner initially accepted and confirmed the appellant's bid under Rule 17(1), but later issued notices demanding further deposits and security under Rule 19, which the appellant argued were not applicable or had been complied with. (!) (!) (!)
• The Divisional Commissioner cancelled the sale and forfeited deposits on June 26, alleging non-compliance with Rule 19, specifically regarding the submission of immovable property details and proof of solvency. (!) (!)
• The High Court upheld the cancellation, holding that the appellant did not comply with mandatory requirements of Rule 19 and that the circular issued by the Excise Commissioner could not modify the Rules. (!) (!)
• The Supreme Court held that provisions of Rule 19 requiring submission of property details to a Tahsildar and subsequent inquiries for doubtful solvency do not apply when shops are situated in more than one Tahsil, as there is no machinery for resolving conflicting opinions between multiple Tahsildars. (!) (!)
• The Court ruled that the Divisional Commissioner was not competent to cancel the sale or pass orders under Rule 20(2); only the Excise Commissioner or the State Government could revise the confirmation order under Rule 17(2). (!)
• The Court found that the appellant had sufficiently complied with the requirement to apply for licenses "at once," interpreting it as within a reasonable time before the commencement of business on July 1. (!)
• The allegation that the appellant was a benamidar (acting for another person) contrary to Rule 12 was rejected due to lack of specific evidence and proof. (!)
• The circular issued by the Excise Commissioner attempting to modify Rule 19 was held ineffective as the Commissioner lacked the power to abrogate or modify rules framed under Section 71. (!)
• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, cancelled the sale cancellation order (Ex. J), and directed the issuance of licenses to the appellant and the cancellation of licenses issued to the rival bidder (Respondent No. 4). (!) (!)