The State has the right to contract in the trade of liquor and that it can adopt any mode of selling the licences for trade or business with a view to maximize its revenue so long as the method adopted is not discriminatory.

Sanjay Karol, J.

In this petition, we are concerned with the rights of the State and the action of its functionaries in allocating Retail Excise Vends (Liquor), Licence in Form L-2 & L-14, falling within the revenue District Una, Himachal Pradesh – (a) Whether the impugned action of the Commissioner is in consonance with the Announcements of the Excise allotments pertaining to the year 2017-18; (b) the acts of the respondent – authorities meet the principle of reasonableness, nonarbitrariness; hence, not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (c) whether this Court is justified in taking on record bid of the petitioner, higher than that of the private respondent, are the questions, which arise for consideration.

2. Petitioner Smt. Sarita Devi has assailed the acceptance of the bid of M/s Rana Enterprises (private respondent No.5 – referred to as private respondent), for the allotment of liquor vends in the Revenue District of Una, on the ground that the bid of Rs.46.51 crores, so accepted by Commissioner (Excise and Taxation), Himachal Pradesh (respondent No.2), subsequent to the petitioner having enhanced her bid to Rs.46.50 crores, was arbitrary, discriminatory and further an act of colourable exercise of power, as no opportunity was afforded to her to participate in the process of negotiation alongwith the private respondent. Collusively respondents No.2 (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) and respondent No.3 (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Commissioner) entered into unilateral negotiations with the said respondent, calling him to place higher bid, which act of his is per se illegal.

3. In the response filed by the Commissioner, it is averred that the respondent-authority completed the auction process strictly in accordance with the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 and the Rules made thereunder as well as Announcements of Excise Allotments by Auction-cum-Tender for the year 2017-18 and that it accepted the final bid which was so offered by the private respondent for an amount of Rs.46.51 crores; respondent-authorities shall implement the orders of this Court in case auction proceedings are conducted in the Court and more revenue is generated for the State; pursuant to the Public Notice so issued by the authority, when negotiations took place on 17.07.2017, private respondent offered the highest bid of Rs.45.99 crores, whereas bid offered by the petitioner was only for a sum of Rs.45.11 crores; on the directions of the Commissioner, private respondent was called by the Deputy Commissioner and the amount was increased to a sum of Rs.46.51 crores; offer of the petitioner of Rs.46.50 crores sent in writing was not considered as auction/negotiation process stood completed by the Committee and that the bid of private respondent had already attained finality.

4. Private respondent in his reply has taken a stand that there was neither any breach nor any illegality in the allotment of tender. Settled position cannot be allowed to be unsettled, especially when petitioner is not an aggrieved person as she failed to offer an amount higher than so quoted by private respondent. Further, an investment to the tune of Rs.4 crores (Appx.) has been made for procurement of liquor.

5. It is clarified that record from the authorities was called for and examined. From the pleadings of the parties as also from the said record, following undisputed facts emerge.

6. The Excise and Taxation Department of Himachal Pradesh, for allotment of liquor vends of revenue District, Una, for the year 2017-18, issued announcements, with reserve price fixed at Rs.90.05 crores.

7. Consequently liquor vends of Revenue District, Una, were put to auction in the month of April, 2017. One Shri Surender Rana, a relative of the petitioner, had given the highest bid, however, since it did not match the reserved price, during the e