Supreme Court of India
STATE OF HARYANAversusJAGE RAM
- Citation
- 1983 INSC 117
- Decided
- 12 September 1983
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- Y V CHANDRACHUD
Holding
Due publicity was not given; therefore the re‑auctions and private licence grants were invalid and the respondents were not liable for the shortfall, although the State’s power to levy a charge as consideration was upheld.
Summary
The State of Haryana resold liquor licences that had been defaulted on by the original bidders, either through re‑auctions or private negotiations, and demanded the shortfall between the original bids and the resale proceeds. The respondents challenged the State's demand, arguing that the re‑auctions were not conducted in accordance with Rule 36(3) of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, which requires adequate publicity. The Supreme Court held that the rule mandates advance public notice of the auction’s date, place and terms, and that such notice was not given; consequently the re‑auctions and private licence grants were invalid. While affirming the State’s power to levy a charge as consideration for the licence, the Court ruled that the respondents could not be held liable for the shortfall because the resale procedures violated the statutory publicity requirement. The State’s appeals were dismissed where the vends had been resold, and allowed where they had not been resold.
Issues considered
- Whether Rule 36(3) of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 requires prior public notice for a re‑auction of liquor vends.
- Whether the required publicity was actually given in the re‑auctions and private negotiations.
- Whether failure to give such publicity vitiates the re‑auction and renders the State’s demand for shortfall unenforceable.
- Whether the State has the statutory power to charge the amounts claimed as consideration for the licences.
Legislation cited
- Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956s. Rule 36(24), s. Rule 36(3)
Subjects
liquor licenceauctionpublicity requirementrule compliancestate powerexcisere‑auctionprivate contractshortfalladministrative law
Judgment
917
STATE OF HARYANA .
A
v.
' JAGERAM
September 12, 1983
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C.J., R. S. PATHAK AND
8
SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.)
Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956-Rs. 36(3) and 36(24)-Sale of /iquor-
Vends by re-auc'tion or by private negotidtions--Whether. vitiated by faUure to
giva due publicity ? · C
The respondellts in this batch of appeals had obtained licences to sell
- I ,
liquor by offering highest bids at auctions held for sale of liquor·vends. On
their failure to -'inake payn1ents due under the terms of auction •. the State
Government resold the liquor-vends in some cases; either by re-auction or by
private negotiations and called upon the respondents to pay. the difference
between the an1ount which they we~e liable to pay and the amount realised by D
the resale of the vends.' In other cases, the respondents were called upon to
pay the amounts due·under the terms of the original auction. The respondents
filed writ petitions contesting the State·· dovernmCnt's power to demand the
various amounts which they had defaulted in paying and the High Court
allowed the petitions. In ;ippeals filed by the State Government, this Court
held that since the rights in regard to manufacture and sale of intoxicants
were vested in the State as a privilege, it was open to the State to part with E
those rights for consideration, and remanded the matter to the High Court
calling for its. findings on whether in cases in which th~ liquor-vends had been
resold by re-auction it waS necessary to give . Pu~licity to the same; ~nd, if so
whether such publicity had in fact been given. The High Court found that
r. 36(3) of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956, which was applicable in
these cases, required publicity to be· given to an auction-sale and this rule F
had been substantially complied with in all cases in which re-auction had
been held.
Disn;issing the appeals i~ which liquor-vends· had been resold either by
re.;auction or by private negotiations and allowing the appeals in which liquor-
vends had not been resold.
G
HELD:- 1. When a rule requires •publicity• to be given to an auction-
sale, what is necessarily implied is that due steps must be taken to give suffi-
ciently advance intimation _of the intended sale and its material tCrms .to the
members of the public or, at least, to that section of the public whicti normally
engage in the kind of business which is the subject matter of the auctioll-sale.
[924 BJ H
In the instant case, no notice as required by r. 36(3) was given to the
public at all. ·Neither the time nor the date of the re·auction, nor the location
~18 SUPREME COURT il.EPORfS . '
11983] 3 s.c.R.
'
or description of th(~ vend which was to be put to re-auctio.n, nor the conditions
A of the re-auction w1!re ever published by the Excise' authorities prior to the
re-auction. What was done by the concerned authOrities was to send telegran1s
to· Excise Officers of five districts with a request that !hey should give publicity
B
to the re-auction and those officers did not take any steps to publicise ihe
re-auction._ Since the re-auctions were not held _in accordance with the rules,
and since, especially, due publicity was not given to' the re-auctions, the res-
pondents cannot be held liable to make good the difference between the
amount which was payable by them and the amount which was fetched at the
re-auction. [923 F-H, 924 A]
--
'
2. By r. 36(24) power has been conferred to re-sell a vend by public
auction or by private contract. But this latter power has to' be exercised with
great care and circumspection. Public auction has to be the.,normal inode of
selling public property. It is open to public gaze and CsChews many tempta·
c tions to which private contracts are subject. lt ~_iS.:~<i_h"}y when a public auction
is not feasible or.has failed to attract bidders aff~t;di.t~· publicity, that a private
contract can be negotiated for disposing of public Property or rights in such
property. [927 B-C] '
In cases in which re-auctions though comn1enced as scheduled were
withdrawn and licences were granted by private negotiations on the spot even
D if there wer(' valid reasons were for revoking the decision to hold the reauctions,
the re-auctions ~hould have been postponed and due publicity given to the
decision to grant licences by private negotiations. 1 he Excise authorities
could not have abruptly decided to jettison the original intention of holding a
public auction and grant licence by pfivate negotiations on the spur of the
moment. The decision smacks of arbitrariness, is unfair and unreasonable
and cannot be allowed to stand. [926 C-D].
3. The question whether the State has .the power to charge the particular
amounts to the licensees of liquor-vends is conclUded .by judgments of this
·court affirn1ing such a power in the State Government. Judgments of the
High Court to t\e contrary in all thOse cases'" in. whiCfiD.o question of re~auctiOn
of liquor·vf:nds arises n1ust therefore be set ~side.ii' J;nd~~?,ihat extent the appeals
filed by the State have to be allowod. (925 F-GT ' ..
. '·
Har. Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Comlitissioner, [1975]3 S.C.R.
254; State of Haryana v. Jage Ram, [1980] 3 S.C.R,.rd46; & State of Punjab v.
Ajudhia Nath, [1981] 3 S.C.R. 686; referred. to. •• ·
. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1507 of
G 1969.
, Appeal from the Judgment aud Order dated the 12th March,
1968 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ No. 1376
of 1967.
·H +
WITH
.Civil Appeal Nos. 1202·20of1970
HARYANA v.-iAGE RAM 919
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd day of July, 1967
of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition Nos. A
2934 & 2955 of 1968 and L.P.A. Nos. 597-599,68, Civil· Writ Nos.
242-45/69, 423, 471, 477, 783-785, 787-89 .& 792 of 1969.
. '
AND
Civil Appeals Nos. 1564-67 of 1970 B
Appeals from the Judgment and Order dated the .20th
November; 1969 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in L.P .A.
Nos. 57-59-69.
AND
c
Civil Appeals Nos. 743-94 of 1974.
From the Judgment and Order dated the 23rd July, 1969 of· the
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Nos. 343, 334, 353,
354, 365, 379, 381, 384, 385, 421, 422, 424, 456, 481, 493, 518, 519,
D
.. 520, 529of1969, 2933, 2948, 2949, 2956, 2975-78, 3021, 3111, 3188
of 68, 254, 264, 307, 308, 715, 706, 674, 662, 661, 604, 596, 588, 554,
737, 786, 791, 798, 828, 836, 945, 839 of 1969.
R.N. Poddar for the Appellants in CA. 1507. E
I
I.S. Goel and R.N. Poddar for the Appellants in CA. Nos.
1202-20.
M.S. Gujral and R.N. Poddar for the Appellants in CA. Nos.
743-794/74. F
K.G. Bhagat, Additi~rial Soliciter General and R.N. Poddar for
the Appellants in CAs. 1564-67/70.
T.S. Munjral and H.K. Puri for Respondent in CA. 1507.
G
P.R. Mridul, V.S. Desai, S. Rangarajan in CAs. 1204 to 1206,
CA. 1564-66 anJ in CA. 743, 762· & 770..
T.S. Munjral, K. C. Dua and Poonam Malhotra for the
Respondents in CAs 1204-06, 1564-67, 743, 762, 764, 765-770. H
R.C. Bhatia and P.C. Kapoor for Respondents in CAs. 1202-03,
1207-20, 744-761, 768, 766-769 & 771-794.
920 SUPitm.m COURT REPORTS i19S3]3 s.c.i.
The Judgment of the Court was de.livered by
A
CHANDRACHUD, CJ, These appeals have a long history. Liquor
vends were put to auction by the Excisi:y · Department of the
Government of Haryana whereupon, the higli.est bidders were given
the necessary licences to sell liquor. Some of the licensees committed
- ~
default in the payment of amounts due from them under the terms of
the auction. Ther.eupon, the vends were reauctioned except for three
vends which, though published for reauction, were giv~n by private.
negotiations. - The original licensees, who were .called upon to pay
the difference between the amo~nt which they were liable to pay· and
the amount realised by resale of the vends, filed writ petitions in the
c High Court of Punjab and Haryana contending that the State
Government had no power to demand the various amounts which
they had allegedly defaulted in, paying,_ The High Court accepted
that contention, holding that the State Government bad n9 authority
to deman'd the amounts for failure to pay which, the vends were put
to resale. As a necessary conseque~cc of that finding, the fresh
D grants made by reauction or private treaty were held invalid. The
result of this was that the writ-petitioners stood relieved of their
obligation to make g6od the shortfall. This is the broad, history of
these appeals.
E We will take up Civil App~al No. 1507 of 1969 for
consideration first. .The facts of that case and the events lending to
the present proceedings are mentioned in a judgment of this Court
reported in State of Haryana v. Jage Ram("). In this case, an auction
was held on March 27, 1967 for the grant of a retail vend known as
Biswan Mee!, Soriepat, for the year 1967-68. The respondents Jage
F ·Ram and others offered the highest bidi in that auct.ion. -Under
Condition 14 (iii) of the auction, respondents .became liable to pay
an amount calculated at the rate of Rs. 17.60 per litre, which came·
to Rs. 10,92,960.00. They paid a security deposit for the due perfor-
mance of the terms of the auction but they committed default in
G paymen\ of instalments which fell due on April JO a.nd April 25;
1967. On May 17, 1967 the Excise authorities cancelled the licence
of the respondents and informed them that the vend will be resold
. 1
· on May 23, 1967 at the risk of the respondents. In pursuance of the -
order dated May, 17, the Biswan Mee] vend was reauctioned on May
H 23, the highest bid offered being in the sum of Rs. 2,46,000.00.'· On 1
July 11, respondents were called upon by a notice to pay a sum of
(!) [1980] 3 S.C:.R 746.
i!ARYANA v. IAGE iw.1 (ChandrachuJ, C.J.) · 92i
·Rs. 7, 41,577.40, being the difference between the amount which
• ' they were liable to pay nuder the terms of the original auction and A.
.the amount fetched in the reauction. Thereupon, respondents filed
· a writ petition in the High Court challenging the ·legality of that
notice. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order.
cancelling the respondents' licence as also the notice calling upon
them to make good the shortfall of. s.even lakhrupees and odd. The
High Court gave to the State of Punjab a certificate to appeal to this
n
Court.
The appeal c"ame up for bearing before a three-Judge Bench
which l:iy its aforesaid Judgment dated April 21, 1980 held thaf the
writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 cannot be used c
for avoiding contractual obligations. On merits, it was held by this
Court following a Constitution Bench decision in Har Shankar v. The
. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner,(') that since rights in
regard to the manufacture and sale of intoxicants are vested in the
State, it is open to the State to part with these ·rights, which are in
the nature of~ privilege, for consideration. The Court f;,ther held D
that the amounts which the State Government had charged to the
respondents were neither in the nature of a tax nor in the_pature of
an excise duty but were in the nature of a price. which the State
Government was entitled to charge as consideration for parting with
its privilege in favour ·of the licensees. . E
. After setting aside the judgment of the High Court and
upholding the demand made by the 'State .Government upon the
respondents, the question naturally arose whether the respondents
could be held liable ·for the shortfall .between the bid offered by them
and the amount realised in the reauction. It was urged by the
respondents that the reauction which was held on May 23, 1967 was
not in accordance with the relevant Rules and therefore; they could
not be called upon to pay the difference between the . amount which
.they were originally liable to pay and the amount which was fetched
in the reauction of the vend.· To be more specific, it was. contended
G
on behalf of the respondents that no notice of the intended resale was
given as required by Rule 36 (3) of the. Punjab Liquor Lice~ce .Rules,
1956, that no notice was published or affixed at any conspicous
public place notifying the proposed resale, nor indeed was the resale
announced by the beat of drums. ·. According to the respondents, one 'H
(I) [1975] 3 S.C.R. 254.
I
922 . SUPREME COURT REPORTS . h9S3] 3 s:c.i.
•
Lal Chand )vent to the office of the Excise and· Taxation Officer,
A Rohtak, and managed to. have his bid accepted in the resale of the
vend, Respondents further urged . that through the , resale ,of the
~·end was.to be effective for a period of about 10 months· out of the
12 months for which the vend ·was originally auctioned, there was a
large shortfall of over Rs. 7 lakhs on account of the· fact that due
publicity was not given to the resale.
B
By the aforesaid
, judgment ' dated, April 21, 1980 this· Court
remanded the matter to the High Court and called for its findings
on two que~tions : (I) Whether it was necessary accordi11g to the
· Rules which were in force at the relevant time to give publicity to the·
C · reauction,'and (2) if so, whethef such publicity was in fact given to
the reauction. · ·
The.High Court has transmitted its findings to this Court,i
which are against the respondents. The Hlgh Court has held by ·
D its order dated September 29, 1980 that the Rules relied upon by the
respondents by which publicity is requir<d to be given to the resale
·are directory and not mandatory and that these rules ·were substan-
·. tially complied ~itli .. These findings are assailed by the respondents
who, by reason of the findings of the High Court, aie virtually in the
position of appellants now.
E
The finding of the High Court that the rules were substantially
~·
complied with is based on an affidavit filed by Shri NS. Bedi,
Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Sonepat, in which he bas
stated that 'all possible steps were taken in connection with the
F publicity done for the reauction of the vend'. The affidavit says that
... telegrams were issued on.May 19, 1967 by the Excise and Taxation
'Officer;Rothak
---... to the Excise
- .
and Taxation Officers ofHissar, -Kamal;
· Gurgaon, Mohindergarfi, Ambala and Jind informing them that the
.. reauctionwillbeheldonMay23, 1967 at 10.oo·a.m.· and asking
r them to give due publicity ·to ·the reauction. The affidavit. further
G. . ·says tliat letters were also written o~ May 20, 1967 to the 'i~portant
lic~nsees of the State' informing them ·of the ·date and time· of the .
reauction and requesting them to attend it. The affidavit ·asserts that .
40 bids were recorded in the reauction and the 40th bid, •being the
. highest, was accepted.
H \
It sems to us impossible to. a~eept: the .findings of the High
Court. We will not enter into the controversy whether the rules
• '.
HARYANA v. JAGE RAM (Chandrachud, C.J.) 923
governing reauction of vends, of which respondents allege breach, are
directory or mandatory in character. Even assuming for the purpose A
of argument that they are directory, we are unable to hold that they
have been susbtantially complied with. . Rule 36 (24) of the Punjab
Liquor Licence Rules, !.956 as amended by the Notification dated
March 31, 1967 says that when{a licence is cancelled, it may be
.- resold by public auction or by private contract in accordance with the
procedure laid down in the other clauses of Rule 36. Clause (3) of
Rule 36 runs thus :
B
"36(3)-The Collector will give timely notice of the
date and place of the auction :
c
• (a) the condition tp which the auction will be
subject ;
(b) the number and situation of the shops to be
licensed for the sale of (country liquor) ;
• D
(c) the prices, if any, fixed for the retail vend of
country spirit or ;
(d) ·the occasions, if any, on which the shops will be
closed; and E
(e) any other information which may be of use to
intending bidders."
No notice as required by this sub-rule was given to the public at all.
Neither the time nor the date of the reauction, nor the location or F
description of the vend which was to be put to reauction, nor the ·
conditions of the reauction · were ever published by the Excise
authorities prior to the reauction. What was done by the concerned
authorities was. to send telegrams to Excise Officers of five districts
with a request that they should give publicity to the reauction. The.
G
ofllcers of those five districts seem to have sat cool over those
telegrams because there is no evidence showing that they took any .
steps for publishing the reauction. A curious feature of this case
is that the Excise authorities claim to have sent letters to five private
I~ licensees informing them that the reauction was fixed for the 23rd
of May 1967 at 10.00 a.m. These letters are at Annexure R·-8 and
are dated May 20, 1967. 20th May f~Il on a Saturday and the
H
reauction was fixed for 23rd May which was the following Tuesday.
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [J 983] 3 S.C.R.
In the normal course, these letters would have been received by the
A addressees on Monday, that is, a day or less prior to the date of
the reau!'tion which was to be held the next morning at IO O'clock.
In these circumstances, it is difficult to hold that any publicity as
such was given to the reau~tion. When a 'rule. requires 'publicity' ,
to be given.to an auction-sale, what is necessarily implied is that due
B steps must be taken to give sufficiently advance intimation of the
intended sale and its materiaUerms to the members of the public
or, at least, to that section of the public which normally engages in
-'
the kind of business which is the subject-matter of the auction-sale,
Eyen the five special invitees would have found it difficult to come
prepared to take part in resale which was held on 23rd May. They
c were not invited to a wedding feast. They were invited to attend
the resale of a liquor vend and it is well-known that a certain amount
has to be paid by the successful bidder on the fall of the hammer.
We are also unable to appreciate that _the Exdse authorities of the
Government of. Haryana should have picked and chosen som~
five particular persons as recipients of the notice of reanction. How
D
their names transpired and what is their particular status, respect- ·
ability at\d standing in the liquor trade, are matters on which no
light is thrown. There is no material before us on wnich to doubt
the integrity of the authorities who were connected with the reauc-
tion. But their conduct must be above suspicion.
E '
The bid-sheet sho)Vs that only six persons offered bicls in the
reauetion and none of the five invitees was amongst those six ... It
appears th~t a small, closely-knit group participted in the re~uction,
successfully keeping out others who might have. of offered adequate
bids in the reauction, were they to have notice thereof. Indeed, the
, amount which was fetched in the reauction itself furnishes prima
facie evidence that all was not well with the reanction. The respon-
dents .had given their original bid in the sum of Rs. 10,92,960.00
which covered a period of one year from April I, 1967 to March 3 I, • ·
1968.' The reauction was held on May 23, 1967 for a licence which
G was' to be effective for the little over 10 months. It is surprising that
the reauction should have fetched a bid of as small an amount as
Rs." 2,46,000.
'since the reauction was not held in accordance with . the rule~,
H '
. either in their letter or in their spirit, and since, especially, due
publicity was not given to the reauction, it is impossible to uphold
reauctiou and mulet the respondents in the, resultant shortfall. We
HARYANA v. JAGE RAM (Chandrachud, C.J.) 925
are of the opinion that rule 36(3) of the Rules was , not even sub·
stantially complied with. It is reasonable to assume that since due A
publicity was not given ·to the reauction, adequate bids were not
received, resulting in prejudice to the respondents. /
Accordingly, we set aside the finding of the High Court that
the relevant rules governing reauction of vends were complied with
B
substantially. Since the reauction did not conform to the rules and
the respondents were prejudice thereby, they cannot be held liable
to make good the difference between the amount which was payable
by them .and the amount_ which Wi'S fetched at the r~ituction.
The result is that the appeal filed by the State of Haryana is c
dismissed, though for different reasons, and the respondents absolved
from their liability to pay the amount which is ·demanded . of them
by the notice dated May 7, 1967 issued by the Collector and Deputy
Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Haryana.
That disposes of Civil Appeal No. l 507 of 1969.. -
D
..• We will now· take up for con;ideration two 'other groups of
appeals, viz, Civil Appeals 1202 to 1220 of 1970 and Civil Appeals
7<43 to 794 of 1974. No question of reauction arises in these groups
of appeals except in Civil Appeals Nos. 1204, 1205 .and 1206 of 1970. E
We shall deal with those three appeals septarately a little later. The
question whi~h arises· in the remanining appeals in these iwo groups,
as regards the power of the State Government to charge the parti·
cular amount to the licensees is concluded by the judgments of this
Court in Har Shunkar v. The Deputy Excise and Taxation Commis-
' '
sioner, Stat7 of Haryana v. Jage Ram·(supra) and State of Punjab v.
Ajudhia Nath('). It was held in those "decisions that the State '
Government has the power to charge the particular amounts to the
licensees. The judgments of the High Court denying to the State
Government that power must therefore be set aside and to that
extent the appeals filed by the State of Haryana allowed. G
The appeals which now remain for consideration are Civil
Appeals 1204 to 1206 of 1970 and Civil Appeals i564 to. 1567 of ·
1970. In these cases also, as in all other cases which are being
disposed of by this judgment, the power of the State Government to. H
(I) (1981]3 S.C.R. 686.
· SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983) 3 S.C.R,
levy the particular charge must be upheld ·in view of. the aforesaid
A three judgments. The judgment of the High Court in these cases
shall therefore have to be set aside to the extent to which the High
Court had denied that power to the State Government. But the
further question which arises in these appe~ls is whether the respon-
dents can be called upon to pay the difference between the amounts
.B which they were ilable to pay under the terms of the original auction
in their favour and the amounts which were fetched in the resale of
the vends .. The facts of these groups of cases are even more peculiar
than the facts of Civil Appeal No. 1507 of 1969 with w~ich we have
dealt at the outset of this judgment. In these cases, it was originally
intended to reauction the_ vends in respect of which the respondents
c had committed default and some publicity, not due or adequate by
any standard, was given. to the reauction. The reauctions com-
menced as scheduled but the Excise authorities changed their mind
in midstream and decided, without any rhyme or reason, to withdraw
the reauctions and to grant fresh licences by private negotiations on
the spot.
D
We agree fully with the very careful judgment of Justice Bal
Raj Tuli that due. publicity was not given to the reauction. It is stated
in the affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government in the High
'Court that, directions were given to the Excise and Taxation Officer,
E Gurgaon by. a cir<:Ular letter that he should give wide publicity to the
reauction doe.to be held on July 24, 1968. The circular letter was
not placed on the record, nor w.as the High Court a apprised as io
how the Excise and Taxation Officers of the Governments of
Haryana arid Punjab gave publicity in their respective districts to
F the proposed reauctions. It is 'significant that the respondents wrofo . '
letters to the Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon on July 20, 1968
complaining thai due publicity was not being given to the reauctions
and that the Rules re.quired such publicity to be given. In spite of
this, no steps were taken to comply with the requirement of the
rules, even though the cost of publicity would have been 'required to
G be borne by the respondents themselves. -
It was urged that Hindi handbills were distributed in Delhi
advertising th · auction. Even those handbiils ·do not contain the
H requisite information which is required to be published under rule
36(3). Tuli, J. was therefore right in not treating the handbills as
constituting due publicity to the reauctions.
' '
HARYANA v. JAGE MM (Chandrachud, C.J.) 927
If the reauctions cannot be upheld since due publicity was not
given to them, the grant of licences by private negotiations during A
the course of reauctions would also have to be set aside. Assuming
that there were valid reasons for revoking the decision to hold the
reauctions, like the paucity of adequate bids at the reauctions; the
reauctions should have been postponed and due publicity given to
the' decision to grant licences by private negotiations. By rule 36(24), B
power has been conferred to resell a vend by public auction or by pri-.
vate contract.· But this latter power has to be exercised with great care
and circumsp~ction. Public auction has to be t_he normal mode of
selling public property. It is open to public gaze and eschews many
temptations to which private contracts are subject. It is only when
at public auction is not feasible. or has failed to attract bidders after c
due publicity. that a private contract can be negotiated for disposing
of public property or rights in such property. Not only is no reason
forthcoming why the intention to hold a public auction was
abandoned after· the auction had commenced but the proceedings
were not adjourned even for a few days in order to publicise the
intention to resell the vends by · private contract. The Excise D
authorities could not have abruptly decided to jettison the original
intention of holding a public auction and grant licences' by private
negotiations on the spur of the moment, that very day and at that
very hour. The decision smacks of arbitrariness, is unfair and
.
unreasonable; and cannot be allowed to stand.
'
E
For these reasons, respondents in Civil Appeals 1204 to 1206
of 1970 and Civil Appeals 1564 to 1567 of 1970, are not liable to
pay the difference between the amounts which they were liable to
I pay under the original auctions and the amounts which they• were
liable to pay under the original auctions and . the amounts which
were fetched by the re-grant of licences by priv~te contracts. . · F
,
The aforesaid disci1ssion will show that the appeals filed by
the State of Haryana succeed to the extent that the State Goveru-
m.ent has the power to levy the ·charge which it demanded' of the
respondents. The finding of the High Court that'the State Govern-
G
ment has no such power is incorrect and must be set aside. The
findings called for by us from the High Court on the question
whether due publicity was given to the reauctions are set aside. We
·hold that due and adequate publicity was not given to the reauc-
tions. We also hold that the regrant of licences by private
negotiations is not in conformity with the Rules and must be struck
H
down in the circumstances of the case. As a result .of the infirmities
from wbich the ri;auctions and the re-grant of licences by private
928 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1983] 3 s.c.R.
' .
contract suffer, respondents in whose cases fresh licences were
A granted either in reauctions or by private contract will not be liable
to make good . the shortfall. The reauctions were necessitated on
account of the default committed by the respondents, but the reason
~f the shortfall is the laxity and arbitrariness with which the resale'
of the vends was held or fresh licences granted. by private contract.
B There will be no order as to costs in any of these appeals.
Order accordingly.
H.L.C. Dismissing the appeals in which liquor vends way r~so/d and
allowing the appeals in which liquor vends way not resold.
1
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "liquor licence"Sign in to search