Point of Law: order of blacklisting /debarment had been passed by the District Excise Officer regarding as many as 39 bidders and that this action indicated the dubious modus operandi resorted to by the bidders to collude together so as to squeeze out the genuine bidders from the race for procuring the licence

JUDGMENT :

SANDEEP MEHTA, J.

1. The instant special appeal (writ) has been preferred by the appellant (respondent No.4 in the writ petition) being aggrieved of the order dated 25.05.2021 passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6896/2021 whereby, the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.4 Shri Devi Lal was accepted and the action of the District Excise Officer, Churu in granting licence of the composite liquor shop of Location-II (Kohina and Sayaran) to the appellant herein was struck down.

2. Facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant appeal are extensively narrated in the impugned order and the relevant extracts thereof are reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:

“(2.1) The State issued Excise and Liquor Policy 2021-22 dated 06.02.2021 in relation to terms and conditions of the license for sale and supply of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Country Liquor, Beer and wine.

(2.2) In furtherance of the policy aforesaid, an invitation dated 06.04.2021 to take part in e-auction came to be published giving out relevant terms and conditions of e-auction for grant of license.

(2.3) The controversy at hand relates to two groups/locations -(i) Tara Nagar and; (ii) Kohina and Sayaran of District Churu (hereinafter referred to as Location-I and Location-II respectively).

(2.4) For the purpose of clarity of facts, the relevant dates and amounts in relation to composite licence for both the locations are reproduced as under:-

(2.5) For the Location-I (Tara Nagar), respondent No.4, Surendra Singh offered the highest amount to the tune of Rs.6,15,19,440/-, whereas for Location-II (Kohina & Sayaran), he remained second highest bidder having offered a sum of Rs.67,33,600/-.

(2.6) The petitioner herein was H-3 or third highest bidder for Location-II (Kohina & Sayaran) offering a bid of Rs.67,28,600/-.

(2.7) The respondent No.3 issued a letter dated 11.04.2021 to respondent No.4, who was H-1 for Location-I asking him to deposit an amount of Rs.6,15,195/-by 16.04.2021 and 5% of the bid amount to the tune of Rs.30,75,972/-by 20.04.2021.

(2.8) The petitioner addressed a letter dated 12.04.2021 to the respondent No.3 that in case H-1 for Location-II (Kohina & Sayaran) does not turn up, the license be given to him after blacklisting H2-Surendra Singh, who has showed his inability to take license of Location-I (Tara Nagar), despite being the highest bidder.

(2.9) By order dated 16.04.2021, respondent No.3 revoked the sanction in favour of Nagendra Singh, being the highest bidder for contentious location -Location-II, as he had given letter dated 15.04.2021 showing his disinclination to take the license.

(2.10) Respondent No.3 also issued a letter dated 15.04.2021 to the petitioner asking whether he was ready to offer bid of Rs.67,33,600/-(equal to H-2), in case first two bidders (H-1 and H-2) for Location-II, backed out from their offer.

(2.11) The petitioner, in turn, sent a communication dated 17.04.2021 to the respondent No.3 and stated that both H1-Nagendra Singh and H2-Surendra Singh (respondent No.4) are not interested in taking the license for Location-II, the license be awarded to him as he was the third highest bidder.

(2.12) On 17.04.2021, the respondent No.3, however, proceeded to issue an offer letter to the respondent No.4-H2 (the second highest bidder) for Location-II, and asked him to d