JUDGMENT Satish Chandra, J. On March 18, 1974, the Collector, Nainital, and the District Excise Officer, Nainital held an auction inter alia, for the settlement of country liquor shops of Bazpur, Jaspur and Gadarpur in the district of Nainital, for the financial year 197475. The petitioner's bid of Rs. 8,00,000/ for these three shops was the highest. That bid was noted down in the bid sheet which was signed by the petitioner. It is not disputed that the petitioner, did not sign nor was he required to sign the relevant entry in the settlement record in Form G14. The petitioner did not deposit the l|6th amount of the bid. The shops of these three places were settled temporarily with some other person and ultimately on April 22, 1974, they were settled permanently for the year in question for a sum of Rs. 5,50,000/. There was a deficiency of Rs, 2,19,01630, being the difference between the petitioner's highest bid of Rs. 8,00,000/ and the amount for which the shop was settled with other person temporarily. The authorities demanded the payment of this deficiency from the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the validity of the demand and also the threat to realise this deficiency as an arrear of land revenue. Learned counsel submitted before us that in view of the statutory rules the petitioner never became the auctionpurchaser. He; was hence neither liable to deposit the security nor pay the deficiency for the short fall. Rule 373 of the Excise Manual lays down the conditions which are to apply to all sales by auction, Rules 374 lays down the general rules, which are to be followed, for conducting excise sales. Subrule (5) of Rule 374 provides: "A settlement record (in Form G14) for all licences to be sold under each branch of excise shall be prepared before the date fixed for the sale." Subrule (6) provides: " (i) The officer conducting the sales shall record the name of each person making a bid and the amount of bid. Subrule (5) of Rule 374 provides: "A settlement record (in Form G14) for all licences to be sold under each branch of excise shall be prepared before the date fixed for the sale." Subrule (6) provides: " (i) The officer conducting the sales shall record the name of each person making a bid and the amount of bid. (ii) Signatures of the highest bidder and the next two lower bidders, shall also be taken on the bid sheet, whether such person have been accepted as auctionpurchasers or not, (iii) At the time of the sale the person accepted as the auctionpurchaser shall be required to sign his name or affix his mark against the relevant entry of the licence in the Record G14, it being explained at the time that the deposit paid in advance will be returned in the event of the licence being subsequently refused. The final bid accepted shall invariably be recorded with his own hand by the officer conducting the sales." The petitioner alleges that no record in Form G14 had been prepared at all. Form G14 provides for nine columns in which the Tahsil, Pargana, name of the shop, name of the licencevendor, account and the fee offered are to be entered in the first six columns. Column No. 7 entitled the signature of the auctionpurchaser. It is obvious that this form is to be partly prepared before the date fixed for the sale, viz., by entering the name of the Tahsil, pargana and the shop but partly it has to be prepared at the time of the sale by filling in the name of the licence vendor in column 5 and the amount of fee offered in column 6. Then when at the time of the sale the person, who offers the highest bid or the next highest bid, is accepted as the auctionpurchaser, he is to be required to sign his name against the relevant entry of this form, i,e. in column No. 7. This statutory procedure has been prescribed in order to determine that not only the officer conducting the sale has accepted an individual person as the auctionpurchaser but that that bidder has also accepted that position. This statutory procedure has been prescribed in order to determine that not only the officer conducting the sale has accepted an individual person as the auctionpurchaser but that that bidder has also accepted that position. Since the prescribed procedure lays down the mode of the acceptance of the auctionpurchaser to be by written signature in the settlement record in Form G14, no other procedure can validly be adopted by an individual conducting the excise sales. In the present cask the allegations that the Form G14, was not prepared at all has not been denied nor the allegation that he was never required to sign his name against the relevant entry in Form G14, has been denied. It is thus evident that the conditions precedent for recognising a person as an auctionpurchaser were not fulfilled. For the respondents, it has been urged that the question of preparing the record in Form G14 and obtaining the signature of the auctionpurchaser would arise only after he has made the deposit of l|6th of the bid as security. We are unable to agree. In Form G14, there is no column for either the date of the deposit of l|6th of the bid or indicating that this amount has to be deposited prior to the acceptance of the person as the auctionpurchaser. A reading of subrule 6(ii) shows that the occasion to deposit the l|6th of the bid would arise only after the event of acceptance of the bidder as an auctionpurchasier has taken place. Then, on the same day, he is required to deposit l|6th of the annual fee under subrule (6) of Rule 373. The power to resell has been conferred by the last clause of subrule (6) of Rule 373 as follows: "In default of payment of security deposit or the advance for the still head duty as aforesaid within the prescribed period the shop or farm will be resold and if the price finally offered at the resale be less than that bid at the first sale, the difference will be recovered from the defaulter through a civil suit' A person must commit default in payment of security deposit before the shop can be resold. Here the stage of payment of security deposit never arose because the requisite statutory formality of obtaining the signature in Form G14 had not taken place. Till that event the bidder was not the accepted auctionpurchaser. Here the stage of payment of security deposit never arose because the requisite statutory formality of obtaining the signature in Form G14 had not taken place. Till that event the bidder was not the accepted auctionpurchaser. Therefore, he could not, in law, be held liable for making the deposit of l|6th of the amount as security. The resale of the shop was not in consonance of any default made by the petitioner. The petitioner, hence could not be liable for the short fall. It was then argued that in any event the amount of the deficiency could only be recovered through a civil suit as prescribed by subclause (6) of Rule 373. There is no merit in this submission. Section 39, Excise Act expressly empowers the recovery of all excise revenue to be by way of arrears of land revenue. Rule cannot override statutory provision. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The demand and the citation for the recovery of the deficiency is quashed and the respondents are directed not to realise the amount from the petitioner. The petitioner will be entitled to costs.