Back
1991 Supreme(AP) 42
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.RADHA KRISHNA RAO
D.Pullniah - Appellant
Versus
Excise Superintendent, kurnool.Kurnool Dist - Respondent
Decided On : 02-08-91
The issuance of a hall ticket is a condition precedent for participating in the auction of arrack shops.
Headnote:
EXCISE - AUCTION OF ARACK SHOPS - HALL TICKET - ISSUANCE OF HALL TICKET IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR PARTICIPATING IN THE AUCTION - PETITIONER NOT ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AUCTION AS HE DID NOT OBTAIN HALL TICKET BY THE DATE OF AUCTION - BID OF THE PETITIONER RIGHTLY REJECTED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, an excise contractor for the last 3 years, participated in an auction for the allotment of arrack shops for the excise year 1990-91. He was the highest bidder, offering Rs. 14,02,000 as monthly rental. However, he was not permitted to sign in the auction register as he did not have a hall ticket to participate in the bid. The bid was knocked down in favor of the 5th respondent, who was the next highest bidder for Rs. 14,00,000/-. The petitioner challenged the action of the excise authorities, contending that the non-issuance of a hall ticket was a mere technicality and that he should have been allowed to participate in the auction.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the issuance of a hall ticket is a condition precedent for participating in the auction. The petitioner had not obtained a hall ticket by the date of auction, i.e., on 15-9-90, and therefore, he was not eligible to participate in the auction. The court also found that the petitioner had applied for a hall ticket only on 18-9-90, after the auction was held, and that the hall ticket was issued to him on the same day.
Issues: 1. Whether the issuance of a hall ticket is a condition precedent for participating in the auction of arrack shops? 2. Whether the petitioner was eligible to participate in the auction as he did not obtain a hall ticket by the date of auction?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Rules 5 and 6 of the A.P. Excise (Lease of Right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules, 1969, which provide that no person shall be permitted to bid or submit a tender unless they have made a declaration in Form A1 and filed an affidavit containing particulars of their immovable property. The court held that the issuance of a hall ticket is not a mere formality but is followed by a declaration made by the bidder as mentioned in Rule 5. Since the petitioner had not complied with the conditions laid down in Rule 5 and had not obtained a hall ticket by the date of auction, he was not entitled to participate in the auction.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not eligible to participate in the auction as he did not obtain a hall ticket by the date of auction. The court also found that the bid of the 5th respondent was rightly accepted as he was the highest bidder who had complied with all the conditions.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner mainly questions the action of the excise authorities in confirming the bid in favour of the fifth respondent in respect of Table group of Arrack Shops, nandyal for the Excise year 19. 90-91 as illegal and unsustainable and contrary to law.
( 2 ) THE petitioner s main case is that the object of conducting the auctions for allotment of arrack shops is to collect higher revenue to the state and in fulfilment of that object, the authorities should not give weight to the technicalities and as he is the highest bidder at the auction even though he has no hall ticket to participate in the bid, the authorities ought to have accepted his bid.
( 3 ) THE petitioner is an excise contractor for the last 3 years in respect of Nandyal Group of shops. The auction for the arrack shops in question for the excise year 1990-91 was held on 15-9-90. The petitioner according to him was the highest bidder and offered Rs. 14,02,000 as monthly rental. The petitioner was not permitted to sign in the auction register by the authorities on the ground he did not have a hall ticket to participate in the bid and therefore the bid was knocked down in favour of the 5th respondent who is the next highest bidder for rs. 14,00,000/ -. His grievance is that the son-issue of the hall ticket, though applied by him, is only an administrative delay on the part of the excise officials aad therefore, he does not suffer from any disqualification and the denial of the authorities to accept bis bid is illegal and contrary te the excise policy.
( 4 ) THE respondent filed a counter denying the fact that the petitioner, is the highest bidder at the auction. According to the respondents, one Dastagiri has offered a bid of Rs. 14,02,200/- for the group of shops in question. it is stated by the respondents, that the said Dastagiri failed to deposit the required amount as per rules and his bid was rejected. As no body came forward to offer any bid. over and above the one offered by the 5th, respondent, the bid was knocked down in favour of the 5th respondent for Rs, 14,00,000/- regarding the delay, in the issue of hall ticket to the petitioner, the respondents sought to explain that the petitioner has applied for a hall ticket with relevant documents on 18-9-90 and the hall ticket was issued to him on the same day itself and there was not administrative delay in issuing the hall ticket. As the petitioner did not have a hall ticket as on the date of auction, he was not allowed te participate in the auction. There was bo loss of revenue to the state Exchequer also as the rental of Nandyal group of shops for the year 1989-90 was Rs. 12,38,569/- and whereas the bid offered by the 5th respondent for the year 1990- 91 is Rs. 14,00,000/ -. Thus, there is an increase in the revenue by Rs. 1,61,431/- per month.
( 5 ) SRI Raghunadha Rcddy, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contends that though rule 6 prescribes, that one shall present a hall ticket to enter the place of auction [but it cannot be said that it is a condition precedent to accept the bid of the petitioner as he is the highest bidder.
( 6 ) RULE 5 of the A P Excise (Lease of right to Sell Liquor in Retail) Rules 1969, says:"no person shall be permitted to bid or submit a tender unless: (i) A declaration in Form A1 is made on non-judicial stamp paper of the value specified by the Govt, from time to time and attested by the Tahsildar or gazetted Officer of the Excise Dept. under his official seal. (ii) A duly sworn in affidavit containing the particulars of his immoveable property and the present market value thereof and in case of encumbrances existing, if any, disclosing all necessary particulars thereof is filed". As per Rule (6) of the said Rules, "no person, other than the officers on duty shall enter the place of. auction without presenting a hall ticket. The hall ticket may be issued by the Excise Superintendent or the Asst. Excise Superinten
