JUDGMENT 1. - All the above - mentioned four writ petitions have been filed with a prayer to declare respondents No. 4 to 20 to be ineligible for being considered for the tenders invited vide tender notice dated February 6, 1991 (Anx.1). It has been further prayed to finalise and accept the tender for grant of licence for exclusive privilege of selling country liquor, Indian made Foreign Liquor and Beer by Retail and Wholesale in respect of tender notice dated February 6, 1991, in favour of the petitioners. This prayer has been made in respect of Jaipur City, Shahpura Group Areas, Dausa Lalsot Group Areas and Bandikui Sikrai Group Areas. Thus, a common question is involved in all these writ petitions, petitioners and respondents are also same in all these petitions, therefore, all the petitions are decided by one single order. The facts mentioned are as given in Writ Petition No. 1358/91, which is regarding the area known as Jaipur City group. 2. By a notice dated February 6, 1991 (Anx.1), sealed tenders were invited for grant of licence fort exclusive privilege of selling IMFL country liquor and Beer by Retail and Wholesale within different areas of Rajasthan, including the areas mentioned above. The petitioners as also respondents No. 4 to 25 submitted the tenders for grant of the said licence. Private Respondents submitted a tender for Jaipur city group for grant of the licence in total consideration of 37 crores. Admittedly, the tender filed by the petitioners was for lesser amount, i.e. 35,61,00,000, the respondent No2-Excise Commissioner accepted the tender of private respondents, since it was for the highest amount. I have heard both the parties and gone through the pleadings and documents on record. 3. It is contended by Mr. Paras Kuhad and Mr. R.P. Garg, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the private respondents were ineligible to be considered for grant of tender, since a criminal case under Section 54 of the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1950') has been registered against the private respondents, whose tenders have been accepted. It is further contended that in Clause 18 of the current licence of the private respondents, a condition is mentioned that, if a criminal case is registered against the licensee, the licence will be cancelled. It is further contended that in Clause 18 of the current licence of the private respondents, a condition is mentioned that, if a criminal case is registered against the licensee, the licence will be cancelled. On perusal of the form of licence produced by the petitioners, it is evident that what is mentioned in Clause 18 is that the Excise Commissioner in such a situation will have discretion to cancel the licence. Thus, the matter rests in discretion of the Excise Commissioner. Admittedly, the current licence of the private respondents has not been cancelled and they are carrying on their business. Such a condition does not exist in the Conditions mentioned in the tender form. Therefore, this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners has no force. Apart from this, it is pointed out that the criminal proceedings arising out of FIR No. 17/89 (Anx.4) initiated under Section 54 of the Act, 1950 are subject- matter of challenge in this Court in S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 3676/90, in which, a stay order was granted on August 23, 1990, directing that no further action be taken in pursuance of the said FIR. 1, therefore, do not find any force in this contention also, raised on behalf of the petitioners. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that unless all the conditions mentioned in the tender form are satisfied by any person, who files tender, he cannot be held to be eligible person to file the tender and his tender cannot be accepted. It is further submitted that it is clearly mentioned in para 8(A) that every licence will file proof of his solvent security to the extent of 121 % of the total amount offered in the tender for grant of licence, if the licensees are more than one person. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that from the document dated 6.3.91, issued under the signature of Excise Commissioner, Udaipur, filed along with the objections to the petition, raised on behalf of the private-respondents, it is clear that the Excise Commissioner has pointed out deficiencies in respect of title deed of Anil Tank. In respect of Jagdish Talwar, it has been pointed out that the solvency furnished is not in the prescribed form. For Raghuveer Prasad Sharma and Durganarain Sharma, it has been pointed out that they have not signed the tender. In respect of Jagdish Talwar, it has been pointed out that the solvency furnished is not in the prescribed form. For Raghuveer Prasad Sharma and Durganarain Sharma, it has been pointed out that they have not signed the tender. It is, therefore, submitted that since there were deficiencies in the documents filed by the private respondents alongwith the tenders, their tenders were liable to be rejected. So far as I have been able to go through the pleadings, it seems that this objection has not been raised in the pleadings, but has been raised verbally, after the document has been filed by the private respondents. It is a usual process that, if any document /documents filed alongwith the tender are deficient in any respect, the concerned Authority can always call upon the licensee to remove the deficiency, which has been done in this document. This matter is within the discretion of the Excise Commissioner and I do not find any force in the contention of the learned counsel that on this account, the tenders of the private respondents should have been rejected. 5. It is also contended that as per sub-clause (Kha) of Clause 12 of the tender notice (Anx.1), if the offer of highest bid is not accepted, for any reason, the Excise Commissioner will have discretion to negotiate with other licensees and may grant tender to either of them. It is pointed out that since the private respondents were not eligible to file tenders as lacs of rupees were outstanding against them, the tender of the private respondents should have been rejected and the Excise Commissioner should have entered into negotiations with the petitioners, who were the only second tenderers for grant of licence to them. It is pointed out that since the petitioners had filed tender for amount of Rs. 35, 61,00,000/-, they would have increased the amount to 37 crores and the license could have been granted to the petitioners and in this way, the State Government also would not have suffered any loss. It is also pointed out that this offer was also made in writing to the respondent No.2 vide application Anx.3. Evidently, the situation pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners did not arise inasmuch as the tender of the highest bidder was accepted and not rejected. It is also pointed out that this offer was also made in writing to the respondent No.2 vide application Anx.3. Evidently, the situation pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners did not arise inasmuch as the tender of the highest bidder was accepted and not rejected. Therefore, stage of carrying on negotiations with those licensees, who have given lesser bid did not arise. 1, therefore, do not find any weight in this contention raised on behalf of the petitioners. Moreover raising the offer after the tenders are opened has no meaning. 6. It is further contended on behalf of the petitioners that Clause 15 of the tender notice (Anx.1) has also been violated. It is pointed out that in this clause, it has been clearly mentioned that, if any amount of the Excise Department is out- standing against the licensee, his tender shall not be considered. It is also mentioned that if any amount is outstanding till December,1990, against any of the licensees for the year, 1990-91, their tenders can be rejected. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the private respondents were licensees for the similar privilege for the year, 1990-91 and in respect of the aforesaid licence, a confirm demand of 76 lacs was due and was payable by the respondents to the Excise Department as on December 31, 1990.Apart from this, another confirm demand of Rs. 1,15,000/- was outstanding against the private respondents for the Period 1989-90 with respect to the interest payable on excise dues. Schedule 'A' has been filed alongwith the petitions, which shows the various amounts outstanding against the private respondents. Anx. 2 issued by the District Excise Officer, Jaipur City, Jaipur, also shows the amounts outstanding against some of the private respondents. It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the outstanding amounts, mentioned above, the private respondents were ineligible to file tenders and their tenders could not have been considered and were liable to be rejected on this ground itself. It is pointed out that, even though, the private respondents have deposited the amounts, before the tenders were opened, this should make no difference, since the above-mentioned amounts were outstanding against them at the time tenders were filed. It is submitted by Mr. K.K. Sharma and Mr. It is pointed out that, even though, the private respondents have deposited the amounts, before the tenders were opened, this should make no difference, since the above-mentioned amounts were outstanding against them at the time tenders were filed. It is submitted by Mr. K.K. Sharma and Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the caveator respondents, that the private respondents were licensees for exclusive privilege for the years, 1989-90 and 1990-91. The respondents No.1 to 3 felt that in their case mere fact that there may be outstanding upto December, 1990, could not be considered to be disqualification as they had submitted that cash security amount to the tune of Rs. 3,97,31,938/- when the contract was granted to them for the year, 1990-91. Obviously, the amounts pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners is much less than the security amount lying with the respondents No. 1 to 3. Therefore, such a demand was not considered by respondent No.2-the Excise Commissioner to be a disqualification. It is also submitted that even if the private respondents were not to lift any liquor after the period when their tenders were considered, yet their total outstanding amounts would not have exceeded the security amount already lying as deposits with respondents No.1 to 3. Apart from that, it is pointed out that Clause 15 in Anx. (1) refers to two categories of persons. The first category is of such persons against whom any dues of Excise Department are outstanding or they are disqualified on any other ground for obtaining licence from the Excise Department. Regarding this category, it is clearly mentioned that if any of the persons belonging to this category files any tender, the same shall not be considered. Thereafter, the clause refers to second category of persons, who are holding licence for the current year, i.e., 1990-91. Regarding licensees for the current year, it has been mentioned that if any amounts are outstanding against such licensees up-till end of December, 1990, their tenders can be rejected on this ground. Thereafter, the clause refers to second category of persons, who are holding licence for the current year, i.e., 1990-91. Regarding licensees for the current year, it has been mentioned that if any amounts are outstanding against such licensees up-till end of December, 1990, their tenders can be rejected on this ground. Obviously, so far as the first category is concerned, it is clearly mentioned that the tenders filed by the persons belonging to first category shall not be considered, whereas, regarding second category, i.e. category of licensees for the year, 1990- 91, it has been made clear that their tenders can be rejected on the ground that there are outstanding amounts of the Department against such licensees. Thus, the matter regarding persons belonging to second category has been left to the discretion of the concerned Authority, which, in this case, is respondent No.2-Excise Commissioner. The learned counsel for respondents No.] to 3 produced for perusal for this Court nothings of the Department and cogent reasons have been mentioned therein by respondent No.2 Excise Commissioner, pointing out why the amounts pointed out to be outstanding by the petitioners cannot be considered to be a disqualification for the private respondents, whose tender being highest in the bid, has been accepted. Apart from the fact that the outstanding amounts were deposited by the private respondents before the tenders were actually opened, the said amount could be adjusted from the security amount to the tune of Rs. 3,97,31,938/- lying with the Excise Department. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that so far as persons mentioned at S. Nos. 1, 2, 5 to 7 and 9 to 16 mentioned in Schedule 'A' are concerned, are all partners in M/s Krishnalal and Party, which had obtained license for the years, 1989-90 and 1990-91. This amount of Rs. 1,27,29,745/- has been shown as outstanding against them in the list of defaulters as circulated by the District Excise Officer for the year, 1990-91, included an amount of Rs. 51,04,095/- also. This amount is subject-matter of adjudication in Writ Petition No. 441/90, which is pending before this Court, in which, stay order against the recovery has been granted. Thus, the rest of the amount comprises of Rs. 76,25,665.80/- which was the amount of short fall of December, 1990. This amount, as mentioned above, was deposited by the private respondents in cash. This amount is subject-matter of adjudication in Writ Petition No. 441/90, which is pending before this Court, in which, stay order against the recovery has been granted. Thus, the rest of the amount comprises of Rs. 76,25,665.80/- which was the amount of short fall of December, 1990. This amount, as mentioned above, was deposited by the private respondents in cash. So far as amounts regarding Shyam Parwani S.No. 3, Vijay Kumar S.No. 8 and Mukhtiyar Singh S.No. 17 are concerned, they were the amounts, for which they stood surety for Krishnalal and Party for the current contract of the year, 1990-91, for Jaipur City Groups of Shops. Therefore, when Krishnalal and Party were not considered to be disqualified, no such disqualification obviously could be attached to the persons, who stood as sureties to the licence. So far as Anil Tank at S.No. 7 is concerned, he is a current licensee for the Bikaner Group Shop, for the year, 1990-91. The Excise Officer, Bikaner, informed the Excise Commissioner vide letter dated February 25, 1991 that the security available with the Department was sufficient to meet out any demand that may remain outstanding. Moreover, amount of 18 lacs was deposited for the Bikaner Group of Shops in cash before the Excise Commissioner considered the tender. Fazruddin mentioned at S.No. 15 in Schedule 'A' was also only a surety and the said demand is under stay from this Court granted at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur. Thus, it will be evident that the Excise Commissioner has carefully considered all the relevant facts deposits of amounts, which were made before the tenders were opened, amounts of security lying with the Excise Department and thereafter, has accepted the bid of the private respondents, being highest. I am, therefore, of the considered opinion that it cannot be said that any amounts were outstanding against the private respondents, who are licensees for the current year and the Excise Commissioner has rightly exercised its discretion, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances mentioned above and also the view point of earning highest revenue for the State. In M/s Chingleput Bottlers v. M/s Majestic Bottling Co., (1) AIR 1984 SC 1030 , While discussing a matter in T.N. Prohibition Act, it was observed by the Apex Court that grant of liquor licence is a matter of privilege. In M/s Chingleput Bottlers v. M/s Majestic Bottling Co., (1) AIR 1984 SC 1030 , While discussing a matter in T.N. Prohibition Act, it was observed by the Apex Court that grant of liquor licence is a matter of privilege. In the very nature of things, the grant or refusal of licence is in the discretion of the State Government. Normally, where the statute vests a discretionary power upon an administrative authority, the Court would not interfere with the exercise of such discretion unless it is made with the oblique motives or extraneous considerations. In the matter under consideration, there are no allegations of oblique motives or extraneous considerations. In M/s Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. The State of Jammu and Kashmir, AIR 1980 SC 1992 , while considering the matter of grant of largess, it was observed by the Apex Court that the Government action must satisfy test of reasonableness and public interest and it was held that grant of contract by way of negotiation was not arbitrary or irrational. It was further observed in para 14 that "one basic principle which must guide the Court in arriving at its determination on this question is that there is always a presumption that the governmental action is reasonable and in public interest and it is for the party challenging its validity to show that it is wanting in reasonableness or is not informed with public interest. This burden is a heavy one and it has to be discharged to the satisfaction of the court by proper and adequate material. The Court cannot lightly assume that the action taken by the Government is unreasonable or without public interest because, as we said above, there are a large number of policy considerations which must necessarily weigh with the Government in taking action and, therefore, the Court would not strike down governmental action as invalid on this ground, unless it is clearly satisfied that the action is unreasonable or not in public interest." As already discussed above, I do not find that the discretion exercised by the Excise Commissioner is either unreasonable or against the public interest. After inviting the tenders, bid of the highest bidder has been accepted, which only shows that the Excise Commissioner has rightly exercised its discretion. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the petitioners also. 7. After inviting the tenders, bid of the highest bidder has been accepted, which only shows that the Excise Commissioner has rightly exercised its discretion. I, therefore, do not find any force in this contention of the petitioners also. 7. The learned counsel for the caveator respondents have raised a preliminary objection, regarding maintainability of the writ petitions, pointing out that the State Government has exclusive privilege of dealing in sorts of intoxicating liquor for human consumption and no person has fundamental right to carry on any trade or business in intoxicating liquor for human consumption. Both the sides had also quoted law on the above-mentioned preliminary objection. How- ever, since I am of the view that there is no merit in the writ petitions, I do not deem it necessary to decide the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. 8. In the result, the writ petitions are dismissed, with no order as to costs.Petitions dismissed. *******