Point of law: Granting license to such bidders, who have back-pedaled to serve their own vested interest and hidden agenda is against the public policy and contrary to statutory mandate

ORDER :

(1) By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the action of the District Excise Officer, the respondent No.3, who granted license of composite liquor shop of Group Kohina & Sayaran to the respondent No.4.

(2) The facts appertain, are set out hereinfra:-

(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-Suirendra 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 deposit security amount of Rs.67,336/- and 5% of the amount to the tune of Rs.3,36,680/- by 16.04.2021 for grant of license to run composite shop at Location-II.

(2.13)On 18.04.2021 and 19.04.2021, the petitioner made representations to the respondent No.3 requesting to grant him the license and also to black-list Surendra Singh, who having soffered the highest bid, has backed out for Location-I.

(2.14)Feeling aggrieved with the above, order/communication dated 17.04.2021 offering licen