Back
High Court Of Calcutta
BHAGAWATI PRASAD BANERJEE
G.MOHANDAS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
. . Of .
Decided On : 06/24/1996
The writ petition was filed by a petitioner who challenged the validity of the order contained in Memo. No. 336 dated 15th April, 1996 and Memo. No. 7-143 LS/95/1289 dated 15th April, 1996 and for other reliefs. For along time the petitioner was doing business of vending liquor on the basis of the licences granted by the Deputy Commissioner: Andaman District by importing Indian made foreign liquor. The auction for the year 1966-67, i. e. from 1. 4. 96 to 31. 3. 97 was held on the basis of public notification whereupon an auction took place and the petitioner became the successful bidder for the bid amount of Rs. 3,09,20,000/- and on 22. 2. 96 when the bid was held the petitioner deposited 50% of the bid amounting to Rs. 1,54,60. 000/- and also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards security deposit.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was the highest bidder for the years 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, and there was complete unblemish records of the petitioner. It was further submitted that the allegations on the basis of which criminal case was started at Nagpur which has not yet been established in the trial, but the same was in investigation stage. In that case, no chargesheet had been given against the petitioner in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner. But the order dated April 15, 1996, was passed identically on the basis of the allegations in respect of which investigation is pending accepting that the said allegations were true and/or proved. By that order, the auction already held on February 22, 1996, was sought to be cancelled.
Finding of the Court:
The impugned order dated April 15, 1996, and the order of the Lieutenant Governor is cancelled and the respondents are directed to give effect and take steps pursuant to the order passed by the Lieutenant Governor dated March 12, 1996, within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of the order. The writ application succeeds.
Issues: 1. Whether the action of the respondents in cancelling the bid was valid and legal. 2. Whether the petitioner was given a fair opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. 3. Whether the respondents were justified in blacklisting the petitioner without giving him a hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The order of the Lieutenant Governor dated March 12, 1996, accepting the bid given on February 22, 1996 has reached its finality and there was no scope for cancellation of the same when it was accepted by the earlier Lieutenant Governor. 2. The petitioner was not given any opportunity of being heard before the impugned order was passed. 3. The respondents were not justified in blacklisting the petitioner without giving him a hearing.
Final Decision: The writ application is allowed. There will be no order as to costs. I make it clear that this order is passed without prejudice to the rights of the Administration to take any step or action according to law in case it is found that the petitioner was guilty of any offence during the currency of the licence period 1996-97, and if ultimately found guilty of any criminal offence by any Criminal Court, they will also be at liberty to cancel or rescind the licence issued pursuant to the order of the Lieutenant Governor dated 12. 3. 96 and in terms of the order of the court as it would be contrary to public interest to entrust such a trade in the hands of persons who may be found guilty of any offence pertaining to the liquor trade or otherwise.
( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner challenged the validity of the order contained in Memo. No. 336 dated 15th April, 1996 and Memo. No. 7-143 LS/95/1289 dated 15th April, 1996 and for other reliefs. For along time the petitioner was doing business of vending liquor on the basis of the licences granted by the Deputy Commissioner: Andaman District by importing Indian made foreign liquor. The auction for the year 1966-67, i. e. from 1. 4. 96 to 31. 3. 97 was held on the basis of public notification whereupon an auction took place and the petitioner became the successful bidder for the bid amount of Rs. 3,09,20,000/and on 22. 2. 96 when the bid was held the petitioner deposited 50% of the bid amounting to Rs. 1,54,60. 000/- and also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards security deposit.
( 2 ) AFTER the auction was held, writ petition was filed by some other persons. being C. O. No. 12 (14) of 1996 in each challenge was made to the auction held on 22. 2. 96 in terns of the notice dated 7. 2. 96 and no interim order was passed in the said application excepting that an order was passed to the extent that auction that was held would abide by the result of the writ application. This Court was informed that the said writ application had been dismissed.
( 3 ) AT about 10. 00 A. M. on 15. 3. 96 the petitioner went to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman as his presence was required to sign the agreement for the year 1996-97 to vend liquor in Andaman and Nicobar Islands since he was the highest and successful bidder in the auction held on 22. 2. 9. 6. After he has attained the office of the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner was told by the Deputy Commissioner that some excise Inspector from Nagpur was waiting in his office to arrest the petitioner in connection with a crime case lodged at Nagpur. The petitioner was arrested there and brought before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair and in terms of an order of warrant of arrest dated 11. 3. 96 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Nagpur, the petitioner was handed over to the Police Personnel of Andaman to take him to custody and to produce him before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. The petitioner was taken to Nagpur by Air via Calcutta and Bombay and he was granted bail at Nagpur on 18. 3. 96 with the condition that he should not leave the City of Nagpur as his presence was required for the purpose of investigation in respect of the said case. Immediately after the petitioner was arrested and he was kept under police custody. A notice was issued at about 10. 00 A. M. by Tapan Mandal, Deputy Commissioner directing the petitioner to submit sales and stock statements of date to the full knowledge that the petitioner was arrested from his office at about 10. 00 A. M. and was kept under police custody. At 5. 00 P. M. on 15. 3. 96 a thorough search was conducted in the office of the petitioner by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and seized all the books of accounts and records from the said office. Thereafter, from 10. 00 P. M. on 15. 3. 96 to 4. 00 A. M. of 16. 3. 96 all the shops and godowns of the petitioner were raided papers and documents were seized and the shops and godown were sealed thereby preventing the petitioner from carrying on the business. At about 10. 00 A. M. on 16. 3. 96 which was a Saturday, a notice was issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman stating that unless all the sales and stock statements were submitted within 5. 00 P. M. on 20. 3. 96 shops and godowns of the petitioner which was sealed in the mid-night of 15. 3. 96 should remain sealed. In the early hours of 18. 3. 96, a letter was written by an employee of the petitioner requesting the Deputy Commissioner to supply all the copies of the books of accounts, sales and stock register etc. which was seized by the Deputy Commissioner for the purpose of submission of sales and stock statements as called for by the Depu
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
