Judgment

DESAI, J. :- This is one of those usual run of the mill cases by a liquor licensee who after giving bids at auctions takes advantage of the licence granted and then wants to wriggle out of the obligations incurred under the license.

2. The respondent gave his bid for country liquor vend at Bagrian in Sangrur District at an auction held on March 25, 1969 and its bid being the highest in the amount of Rs. 1,32,000/-, was accepted. The authorities under the Punjab Excise Act and the various orders and rules issued thereunder held auction for different country liquor vends in Patiala District adjoining Sangrur District on March 22, 69. It appears that the Excise and Taxation Commissioner was not satisfied with regard to the bids received for 15 bids and directed re-auction on March 26, 1969. Pursuant to this order, when fresh auctions were held in respect of the 15 vends in Patiala District on Mar. 26, 1969 it included a vend at village Gulwati. Village Gulwati is a distance of 4 to 5 furlongs from Bagrian where the vend for which the bid of the respondent was accepted was to be located. The highest bid for Gulwati vend was in the amount of Rs. 68,000/- which was accepted. The respondent felt that there may be an unhealthy competition and it may be adversely affected by setting-up of a vend at Gulwati and therefore started making representations to the Excise and Taxation Officers calling upon them to close the vend at Gulwati. Even when the respondent was lodging the protests, it was operating the vend at Bagrian. Undoubtedly, at one stage, the respondent offered to surrender its vend at Bagrian. But it was never surrendered and the protest of the respondent fell on deaf ears. Ultimately, the respondent and one Banarsi Das whose bid for vend at Bhadson was the highest, filed two writ petitions in the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh.

3. In this appeal, we are concerned with Civil Writ Petition 996/79 filed by the present respondent. The respondent, inter alia, contended in the writ petition that it was never intimated that at a short distance from Bagrian though in adjoining district, a country liquor vend shall be set up and auctioned when the auetion was held for Bagrian vend, and it was alleged that there was an implied promise not to set up a vend at a nearby place which would adversely affect the business of the respondent. It was also contended that the vend at Gulwati was opened without complying with the requirements of Rules 3, 5 and 6 of the Punjab Intoxicants License and Sale Orders, 1956 and the action of the authority in establishing the vend was illegal and a direction be issued to close the vend. There were numerous other contention about the validity of the auction and the license fee with which we are not concerned. The relief prayed for in the writ petition was that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to forthwith close the country liquor vend at Gulwati and until the vend is so closed not to make recovery from the petitioner of the so called licence fee concerning the liquor vend at Bargian. Alternatively, it was prayed that a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to take over the liquor vend at Bagrian from the petitioner discharging him from the liability of paying the licence fee. A further prayer was that the respondent be restrained from recovering the licence fee except with reference to the actual quantity of liquor that may be sold. We have referred to the specific prayers because the High Court has granted the prayer which was neither made nor which the High Court could have granted as if awarding damages in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. To the writ petition, the respondent impleaded (i) the State of Punjab (ii) the Excise and Taxation Commissioner, (iii) the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner, (iv) the Excise & Taxation Officer, Sangrur and (v) the Excise & Taxation Officer, Patiala