1991 Supreme(Raj) 618
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
I.S.Israni, J.
M/s Shiv Dayal and Party and others - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1358, 1401, 1402 and 1403 of 1991.
Decided On : 29-03-1991
The grant of liquor licenses is a matter of privilege and the State Government has the discretion to grant or refuse licenses. The court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless it is made with oblique motives or extraneous considerations.
Headnote:
LIQUOR LICENSE - ELIGIBILITY - OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS - INTERPRETATION OF TENDER CONDITIONS - DISCRETION OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER - REASONABLENESS AND PUBLIC INTEREST - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITIONS - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO CARRY ON LIQUOR BUSINESS.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the acceptance of tenders for liquor licenses by the Excise Commissioner, arguing that the successful bidders were ineligible due to outstanding amounts owed to the Excise Department and criminal cases against them. The petitioners also claimed that their own tenders should have been accepted as they were the second-highest bidders and were willing to increase their offer to match the highest bid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Excise Commissioner had carefully considered all relevant factors, including the outstanding amounts, security deposits, and the potential revenue for the State, in accepting the highest bid. The court held that the Excise Commissioner had not acted unreasonably or against the public interest in exercising its discretion to accept the highest bid.
Issues: 1. Whether the successful bidders were ineligible for liquor licenses due to outstanding amounts owed to the Excise Department and criminal cases against them. 2. Whether the Excise Commissioner had properly exercised its discretion in accepting the highest bid. 3. Whether the petitioners' tenders should have been accepted as they were the second-highest bidders and were willing to increase their offer to match the highest bid. 4. Whether writ petitions challenging the grant of liquor licenses were maintainable, considering that the State Government has exclusive privilege of dealing in intoxicating liquor and there is no fundamental right to carry on such business.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the tender conditions to hold that the Excise Commissioner had the discretion to consider outstanding amounts against licensees for the current year and to reject their tenders on that ground. 2. The court held that the Excise Commissioner had properly exercised its discretion in accepting the highest bid, considering all relevant factors and acting in the best interests of the State. 3. The court found that the petitioners' argument that their tenders should have been accepted was without merit, as the Excise Commissioner had not acted unreasonably or against the public interest in accepting the highest bid. 4. The court did not decide the issue of maintainability of the writ petitions, as it found that the petitions lacked merit on other grounds.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, holding that the Excise Commissioner had properly exercised its discretion in accepting the highest bid and that there was no merit in the petitioners' arguments.
JUDGMENT
1. - All the above - mentioned four writ petitions have been filed with a prayer to declare respondents No. 4 to 20 to be ineligible for being considered for the tenders invited vide tender notice dated February 6, 1991 (Anx.1). It has been further prayed to finalise and accept the tender for grant of licence for exclusive privilege of selling country liquor, Indian made Foreign Liquor and Beer by Retail and Wholesale in respect of tender notice dated February 6, 1991, in favour of the petitioners. This prayer has been made in respect of Jaipur City, Shahpura Group Areas, Dausa Lalsot Group Areas and Bandikui Sikrai Group Areas. Thus, a common question is involved in all these writ petitions, petitioners and respondents are also same in all these petitions, therefore, all the petitions are decided by one single order. The facts mentioned are as given in Writ Petition No. 1358/91, which is regarding the area known as Jaipur City group.
2. By a notice dated February 6, 1991 (Anx.1), sealed tenders were invited for grant of licence fort exclusive privilege of selling IMFL country liquor and Beer by Retail and Wholesale within different areas of Rajasthan, including the areas mentioned above. The petitioners as also respondents No. 4 to 25 submitted the tenders for grant of the said licence. Private Respondents submitted a tender for Jaipur city group for grant of the licence in total consideration of 37 crores. Admittedly, the tender filed by the petitioners was for lesser amount, i.e. 35,61,00,000, the respondent No2-Excise Commissioner accepted the tender of private respondents, since it was for the highest amount. I have heard both the parties and gone through the pleadings and documents on record.
3. It is contended by Mr. Paras Kuhad and Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the private respondents were ineligible to be considered for grant of tender, since a criminal case under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1950') has been registered against the private respondents, whose tenders have been accepted. It is further contended that in Clause 18 of the current licence of the private respondents, a condition is mentioned that, if a criminal case is registered against the licensee, the licence will be cancelled. On perusal of the form of licence produced by the petitioners, it is evident that what is mentioned in Clause 18 is that the Excise Commissioner in such a situation will have discretion to cancel the licence. Thus, the matter rests in discretion of the Excise Commissioner. Admittedly, the current licence of the private respondents has not been cancelled and they are carrying on their business. Such a condition does not exist in the Conditions mentioned in the tender form. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. Apart from this, it is pointed out that the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 17/89 (Anx.4) initiated under Section 54 of the Act, 1950 are subject- matter of challenge in this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3676/90, in which, a stay order was granted on August 23, 1990, directing that no further action be taken in pursuance of the said FIR. 1, therefore, do not find any force in this contention also, raised on behalf of the petitioners.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless all the conditions mentioned in the tender form are satisfied by any person, who files tender, he cannot be held to be eligible person to file the tender and his tender cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that it is clearly mentioned in para 8(A) that every licence will file proof of his solvent security to the extent of 121 % of the total amount offered in the tender for grant of licence, if the licensees are more than one person. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that from the document dated 6.3.91, issued under the signature of Excise Commissioner, Udaipur
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
