JUDGMENT 1. - This bunch of petitions raises a common question of law as to whether the notice issued by the District Excise officer was valid. 2. Through the aforesaid notice for recovery, the amount mentioned therein was recoverable by the District Excise Officer on the ground that the security furnished by the petitioner had gone reduced because of the non-payment of the price of the country liquor for the period of December, 1981. 3. For deciding the point raised before me, I would consider the facts of SB GWP No. 422/1982. This firm was granted a licence for exclusive privilege of selling country liquor by retail sale within the area specified under Section 24 of the Rajasthan Excise Act obtained by it by auction system on payment of Rs. 6,00,791/- for the period from 12.9.1981 to 31.3.1982. The petitioner had paid Rs. 1,08,700/- as security and Rs. 1,000/- as licence fee and the remaining amount was to be paid in seven equal monthly, instalments. The petitioner had been given a licence in respect of the auction of which he was the highest bidder. The licence was confirmed under rule 67-1 of the Rules. 4. After the issue of the licence, the excise authorities suplied country liquor for the months of September and October and the petitioner deposited the amount for any shortage which remained on his account. In the months of November and December, however these was a storage of country liquor in the warehouse of Ganganagar Sugar Mills, on account of which country liquor was not supplied for the quantity which the District Excise Officer, Ganga Nagar had to supply. The petitioner despite the repeated requests could not get the quantity of country liquor in respect of the shops, which had been taken by him on auction. It has filed Schedule-A to the writ petition giving the the details about the deposit receipt of cautarg liquer and the shortfalls. The same is reproduced below: Sl. No. Deposit Date Amount Sales Tax Date of supply of issue Amount 1. 9.11.81 1,950/- 1,170/- 30.11.81 1,950/- 2. 10.11.81 7,800/- 4,680/- 18.11.81 3,120/- 21.11.81 4,680/- 7,800/- 7,800/- 3. 16.11.81 12,300/- 7,380/- 25.11.81 8,640/- 30.11.81 3,634.80 01.01.82 25.20 12,300/- 12,300/- 4. 17.11,81 7,800/- 4,680/- 23.11.81 7,800/- 5. 24.11.81 15,600/- 9,360/- 17.12.81 3,900/- 01.01.82 11,700/- 15,600/- 15,600/- 6. 27.11.81 13,200/- 7,920/- 26.12.81 5,400/- 01.01.82 7,800/- 13,200/- 13,200/- 7. 21.12.81 11,700/- 7,020/- 01.01.82 11,700/- 5. 9.11.81 1,950/- 1,170/- 30.11.81 1,950/- 2. 10.11.81 7,800/- 4,680/- 18.11.81 3,120/- 21.11.81 4,680/- 7,800/- 7,800/- 3. 16.11.81 12,300/- 7,380/- 25.11.81 8,640/- 30.11.81 3,634.80 01.01.82 25.20 12,300/- 12,300/- 4. 17.11,81 7,800/- 4,680/- 23.11.81 7,800/- 5. 24.11.81 15,600/- 9,360/- 17.12.81 3,900/- 01.01.82 11,700/- 15,600/- 15,600/- 6. 27.11.81 13,200/- 7,920/- 26.12.81 5,400/- 01.01.82 7,800/- 13,200/- 13,200/- 7. 21.12.81 11,700/- 7,020/- 01.01.82 11,700/- 5. On account of the non supply of country liquor the petitioner did not pay the instalments of the-price. Consequent, upon the failure of the petitioner to pay the price, the District Excise Officer issued a notice calling upon it to make good the deficiency in the prince of the country liquor. Thereupon the petitioner challenged the validity of notice of demand, which according to the petitioner, was not payable. 6. The petitioner has raised a number of grounds in justification of the writ petition for certiorari to quash the notice of demand and for mandamus to return the security amount offered by it to the District Excise Officer. 7. The writ petition has been contested by the District Excise Officer on the ground that the petitioner was under an obligation to deposit the sum of money demanded by the Excise Department. It was alleged in paragraph 2 of the counter affidavit as under: "It is also incorrect for the petitioner to say that country liquor is supplied only for 80% of the money deposited. The liquor is supplied for the full money deposited at the issue price. It is only that 80% of the issue price is adjusted towards the payment of monthly instalment and this adjustment of payment towards the instalment is called 'Rebate' i.e., the holder of licence is not pay separately the auction money but instalment is to be adjusted from the 80% of the issue price of the country liquor deposited by him. The extra burdens of botting cost, cost of bottles, sales-tax and other taxes are to be borne by the licence over and above the issue price without any adjustment towards the instalment and whatever amount remains deficient towards the instatment the licencee holder is to make good by depositing it or the excise authorities are entitled to adjust that amount from the security deposit. The obligation is on the licence holder to first deposit the amount due for instalment. The obligation is on the licence holder to first deposit the amount due for instalment. The obligation to supply the liquor arises only when instalment money is deposited not before that. The District Excise Officer alleged that the petitioner was under an obligation to keep atleast 15 days stock at all times. 8. Before me the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that supply having not been made by the District Excise Officer in accordance with the contract or the term of licence, the District Excise Officer wrongly issued the notice contained in the Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Counsel for the Excise Department urged that unless the payment was deposited there was no oblication on the State Government to make the arragment for liquor before money was paid. 9. Having considered the submissions of the parties it appears to me that this case involves determination of questions of fact, which by its peculiar nature, cannot be decided in the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner could make & representation provided for by Section 11 of the Rajasthan Excise Act to the Commissioner, if there was a grievance and instead of doing so, the petitioner rushed to the High Court. Without determination of fact, no relief can be given to the petitioner. 10. A learned single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 635 of 1986 decided on 15.9.1986, rejected the writ petition seeking relief on account of the shortage or non supply of country liquor by the Excise Department. 11. The question that arises in this case is as to whether the non-supply was on account of the failure on the part of the petitioner to lift the country liquor, or due to the inaction and contravention of the statutory provisions by Excise Department. Another controversy, which may arise in this case is whether the person not lifting the country liquor and paying its price acts in contravention of the contract entered into. 12. In The State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh and Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1717 , which was an appeal preferred against an decision of the High Court quashing the demand as the demand was made in enforcement of liabilities arising out of mutually agreed conditions of auction. 12. In The State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh and Ors. AIR 1977 Supreme Court 1717 , which was an appeal preferred against an decision of the High Court quashing the demand as the demand was made in enforcement of liabilities arising out of mutually agreed conditions of auction. The Supreme Court held that the quashing of the demand notice by the High Court was not justified as the enforcement of the liabilities arising out of the mutually agreed conditions of auction were not amonable to writ Jurisdiction for the view taken the Supreme Court relied on a decision on Sham Lal v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 2045 . In fact, what the Government confers right on the Highest bidder is the privilege to sell in toxicant, which exclusively belongs to the Government to realise the unpaid price could not be challenged. The petitioner could not get any remedy by means of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution as the demand was made the excise authorities in enforcement of liability arising out of a mutually agreed condition of auction. What was said by the Supreme Court in Har Shankar v. Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, AIR 1975 SC 1121 was the bids given in the auctions were offers made by prospective vendors to the Government. The Government's acceptance of these bids was the acceptance of willing offers made to it. On such acceptance, the contract between the bidders and the Government became conclusive and a binding agreement came into existence between them. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution does not enforce a contract. Consequently, bidders offering withfull knowledge of terms and conditions attached about auctions they would not be permitted to wriggle out of voluntarily incorporated contractual obligation by invoking writ jurisdiction. If the petitioner goes to the Excise Commissioners, it will be possible for the Excise Commissioners to examine the entire material and to come to a finding on the disputed questions of facts. 13. For the reasons given in the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.Writ Dismissed. *******