Back
1981 Supreme(Del) 276
High Court Of Delhi
CENTERAL DISTILLERY AND BREWERIES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE - Respondent
L.P.A. 100 of 1981
Decided On : 09/14/1981
J.S.Arora, K.C.MITTAL, L.M.Sanghvi, MAEHSVAR DAYAL, Subhash Vidyalankar
Blacklisting can only be ordered if there is a violation of the Act or the Rules, malpractices, or any other reason detrimental to the interest of the State or public health.
Headnote:
BLACKLISTING - EXCISE LICENCE - CONDITIONS - BREACH - PUNJAB EXCISE ACT, 1914 - DELHI LIQUOR LICENCE RULES, 1976 - RULE 33 (40) - VALIDITY OF BLACKLISTING ORDER - INTERPRETATION OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS - CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION - WRIT PETITION - MAINTAINABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant tendered for obtaining a license in form CLW-1 and L-9. In the tendered, he tendered for all three sizes of bottles notwithstanding Condition 2 of Terms and Conditions, which requires the tender to be submitted separately for each size of country liquor bottles. However, by his letter of 1-4-1979, the Commissioner accepted his tender only with regard to the country liquor bottles of the size of 180 ml. In pursuance of the country liquor bottles of the size of 180 ml. In pursuanceted Rs. 2 lakhs security and also paid the license fee.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the order of blacklisting was not valid as there was no violation of the Act and the Rules. The court found that the condition precedent of being a successful tenderer was non-existent there being no concluded contract. The court also held that the mere fact that the letter of 4th of May mentioned that the tender was being accepted subject to the condition of deposit of separate security did not mean that the tender was not accepted fully and a concluded contract had not come into existence.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of blacklisting was valid? 2. Whether there was a violation of the Act and the Rules? 3. Whether the condition precedent of being a successful tenderer was non-existent? 4. Whether the mere fact that the letter of 4th of May mentioned that the tender was being accepted subject to the condition of deposit of separate security meant that the tender was not accepted fully and a concluded contract had not come into existence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the order of blacklisting was not valid as there was no violation of the Act and the Rules. 2. The court found that the condition precedent of being a successful tenderer was non-existent there being no concluded contract. 3. The court also held that the mere fact that the letter of 4th of May mentioned that the tender was being accepted subject to the condition of deposit of separate security did not mean that the tender was not accepted fully and a concluded contract had not come into existence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the learned single Judge, and issued appropriate writ and quashed the impugned orders of the Collector dated 23-1-1980 as well as the Commissioner dated 10-3-1980.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order of learned single Judge by which he dismissed the writ petition which had challenged the order of the Collector of Excise as well as of the Commissioner of Excise by which the later had ordered the blacklisting of the appellant for a period of 3 years.
( 2 ) THE terms and conditions for grant of licence for country liquor in the Union Territory of Delhi is governed by Punjab Excise Act read with Delhi Liquor Licence Rules, 1976 (to be called 1976 Rules ). Rule 32 of the 1976 Rules provides for procedure in case the licence is decided to be granted by tender. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 32 of 1976 Rules provides that no tender shall be considered unless the earnest money as prescribed by the Excise Commissioner has been deposited in a Government Treasury or in State Bank of India in favour of the Excise Commissioner or Bank Draft or cash in currency notes is/are attached to each tender. In pursuance of this statutory power the Commissioner for Excise issued terms and conditions for grant of CLW-I and L-9 licence for the year 1979-80. Condition No. 2 provided that tenders are to be submitted separately for each size of country liquor bottles i. e. 750 ml. , 375 ml. and 180 ml. Condition No. 31 -lays down that no tender shall be considered unless it is accompanied by a bearer draft of Rs. 50,000. 00. Condition 27 provides that successful tenderer shall be required to deposit immediately after the decision has been communicated to him a sum of Rs. 2,00,000. 00 in cash or government promissory notes for the due fulfilment of terms and conditions of licence during 1979-80. Clause 35 provided that terms and conditions arein addition to the terms and conditions governing the grant of licence under the Punjab Excise Act. Breach of any of the conditions mentioned above and in the provisions of Punjab Excise Act and the Rules will render a licence granted to the licencee liable to cancellation in addition to the penalties including the blacklisting of the. distillery for a period of 5 years. Rule 33 (40) of 1976 Rules provides that licencee, tenderer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . may be blacklisted by the Collector for violation of the provisions of Punjab Excise Act and the Rules framed thereunder. . . . . . . or for any other reason which may be considered detrimental to the interest of the State or public health.
( 3 ) THE. appellant tendered for obtaining licence in form CLW-1 and L-9. In the tendered he tendered for all the three sizes of bottles notwithstanding Condition 2 of terms and Conditions which requires the tender to be submitted separately for each size of country liquor bottles. However, by his letter of 1-4-1979 the Commissioner accepted his tender only with regard to the country liquor botles of the size of 180 ml. In pursuance to the country liquor bottles of the size of 180 ml. In pursuanceted Rs. 2 lakhs security and also paid the licence fee.
( 4 ) SOMETIME a month later it appears that the Administration was willing to consider and accept the rates given by the appellant with regard to 375 ml. size of bottle for the year 1979-80 with the condition that it deposits an additional security of Rs. 2 lakhs. The appellants however, wanted this condition to be waived so as to enable them to take up the supply. To this the Commissioner of Excise was not willing because on 4-5-1979 he wrote a letter to the appellant that the Administration was pleased to accept the offer with ragard to 375 ml. size of liquor bottle subject to the condition that the appellant deposits a separate security for the supply of country liquor in 375 ml. bottles in addition to the security deposit for the contract for 180 ml. bottles. The appellant still persisted and asked for the waiving of this additional security to enable them to supply the same and informed the Commissioner on 5-5-1979 regarding this. Apparently there is nothing on record to indicate as to what transpired in between till
