JUDGMENT B.P. Jeevan Reddy, CJ. - I agree with my learned Brother S.R. Singh, J. that this writ petition must fail. However, having regard to the fact that the question involved in this case is arising frequently, I think it appropriate to say a few words. All the necessary facts are stated in the judgment of my learned Brother and I would mention them only to the extent necessary herein. The auction in respect of the Ranikhet shop took place on 10-5-1980. The highest bid of the petitioners was in the sum of Rs. 2,65,000/-. They made the necessary deposits on that day itself and on the following days. Before, however, the licence could be issued, they sought to withdraw their bid through a letter dated 19-5-1980. Notwithstanding the said letter, the petitioners paid certain further amounts on 23-5-1980 and 2-6-1980 (vide paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit) and obtained the licence on 3-6-1980. They purchased foreign liquor on the basis of the said licence and did business for a few days. It is not stated that the licence granted to the petitioners was a provisional licence. It was a regular licence. Then, the petitioners say, they sent a telegram on 8-6-1980 seeking to surrender the licence. Thereafter, the petitioners failed to pay the further amounts payable according to the Rules and the licence. The respondents have taken proceedings for recovering the balance amount, which is being challenged in this writ petition. 2. The first argument of Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that in as much as the Excise Commissioner confirmed the bid only on 13-6-1980 and because the petitioners had surrendered the licence through a telegram even on 8-6-1980, there was no concluded contract between the parties and hence no amount can be recovered from the petitioners, and certainly not as arrears of land revenue. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal, AIR 1980 SC 680 and a Bench decision of this Court in Dhunmun Ram v. State of U.P., 1979 UPTC 1033 . My learned Brother has elaborately discussed these cases and pointed out why the ratio of the said decisions is not applicable herein and I agree with him. It is true that the Commissioner confirmed the petitioners' bid formally on 13-6-1980. My learned Brother has elaborately discussed these cases and pointed out why the ratio of the said decisions is not applicable herein and I agree with him. It is true that the Commissioner confirmed the petitioners' bid formally on 13-6-1980. but long prior thereto, i.e., on 3-6-1980, the licence was granted to the petitioners. Since it was not a provisional licence but a regular licence, it must be taken that the grant of licence amounted to confirmation of the bid. The petitioners not only took the licence by paying the necessary amount, but also did business for sometime. In such a situation, the argument that there was no concluded contract is ex-facie untenable. So far as the letter dated 19-5-1980 is concerned, it must be taken to have been withdrawn inasmuch as the petitioners themselves paid further amounts subsequent to the said letter and took out the licence. The petitioners cannot go back and rely upon the said letter. In such a situation, Section 39 clearly applies and the amount due from the petitioners would be excise revenue, which can be recovered as arrears of land revenue. 3. Sri Sudhir Chandra relied upon the conditions of auction contained in paragraph 373 of the U.P. Excise Manual, which governed the auction in question. Clauses 2, 3 and 6 of the said paragraph read as follows : "(2) The final acceptance of any bid is subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner, which, in its turn, is subject to decision by the Government in appeal or revision, if any." "(3) Every person bidding will be held to his bid, whether it be the highest or not." "(6) A sum equal to one Sixth of the annual fees in the case of country spirit shops and a sum equal to one fourth of the annual licence fees in the case of foreign liquor shops shall be payable immediately on the conclusion of the sales for the day, and the balance by such instalments as are specified in the licence to be granted. If default be made in the payment of the advance instalment, the shop or farm will be resold, and if the price finally offered at the re-sale be less than that bid at the first sale the difference will be recovered from the defaulters through a civil suit." Mr. Sudhir Chandra argues that Cl. If default be made in the payment of the advance instalment, the shop or farm will be resold, and if the price finally offered at the re-sale be less than that bid at the first sale the difference will be recovered from the defaulters through a civil suit." Mr. Sudhir Chandra argues that Cl. (6) applies not only to the advance instalment, which has to be paid before taking out the licence, but also to the instalments payable subsequent to the grant of licence. We cannot agree. The language of Cl. (6) is very clear. Paragraph 373 deals with the stage of auction. The advance instalment referred to in Cl. (6), is th of the annual licence fee in the case of foreign liquor shops and ?th of the annual fees in the case of country spirit shops. Cl. (6) says that if this advance instalment is not paid, as provided therein, the shops or farm will be resold and the loss occurring therefrom, if any, shall be recovered from the defaulter through a civil suit. Cl. (6) has no application to subsequent instalments, though it formally reiterates the said obligation as well. The consequence of default in paying subsequent instalments is provided in paragraph 174 of the Excise Manual and also by the conditions of licence. In my opinion, therefore, Cl. (6) of paragraph 373 has no application to the instalments payable subsequent to the grant of licence and if so, the provision made therein that the difference shall the recovered through a civil suit has no application herein. S. 39 of the U.P. Excise Act clearly provides that in ease of a default by a holder of a licence, the Collector may take the grant and manage it himself, or forfeit it, or re-sell it at the risk and loss of the defaulter. It is this provision, which applies here. 4. It is then argued that the respondents have made no attempt to re-sell the licence and that the respondents were bound to take all necessary steps for mitigating the damage. This plea has not been specifically raised in the writ petition and, therefore, the respondents had no opportunity of clearly meeting the same. The language of S. 39 is wholly distinct and different from the language employed in Cl. (6) of paragraph 373. This plea has not been specifically raised in the writ petition and, therefore, the respondents had no opportunity of clearly meeting the same. The language of S. 39 is wholly distinct and different from the language employed in Cl. (6) of paragraph 373. It is also wholly distinct from the language used in R. 84(1) of O. 21, C.P.C. In such a situation, the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court in M.M. Shah v. Sardar S. Ahmed, AIR 1954 SC 349 cannot be imported. It is equally doubtful whether the said rule, evolved under the Contract Act, is applicable in a contract governed by statutory provisions. 5. For the above reasons, I agree with my learned Brother that the writ petition should be dismissed. S.R. Singh, J. - 5A. United Provinces Excise Act 1910 (hereinafter referred to as an 'Act'), as adapted and modified by the adoption of laws Order, 1950, is a complete Code in itself relating to the import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and intoxicating drugs. 6. Section 24A of the Act provides for the grant of exclusive or other privileges in respect of foreign liquor which we are concerned with in the present case. The right of the State to sell the exclusive privilege of selling liquor is unquestionable and it is undeniable that the main and important purpose of selling this privilege is to raise revenue for the State exchequer. The task of protecting revenue by securing best price for privilege, has necessarily to be entrusted to the Executive Government and this is what the Scheme of the Act envisages. 7. There is no gainsaying the fact that public auction is one of the modes of getting the best possible price. A public auction for the wholesale vend of foreign liquor viz. licences in Form F.L.-2, was held in the district of Almorah on 10-5-80 for the purpose of conferring exclusive privilege of supplying foreign liquor to the retail vendors holding licences in Form F.L-5 in the district of Almorah including the town of Ranikhet. The auction was held in a group for two shops, one in the Town of Almorah and the other in the town of Ranikhet for the period commencing from 15-5-80 and ending on 15-11-80. The auction was held in a group for two shops, one in the Town of Almorah and the other in the town of Ranikhet for the period commencing from 15-5-80 and ending on 15-11-80. Two licences in Form F.L.-2, one for Almorah and the other for Ranikhet were to be issued on the basis of the said auction. 8. The petitioner were the highest bidders in respect of the aforesaid two licences in Form F.L.-2. The bid for F.L.-2 licences in respect of Almorah, was of Rs. 2,61,000/-, while in respect of Ranikhet, it was of Rs. 2,65,000/-. In respect of Ranikhet shop. they deposited Rs. 21,250/- on the date of auction and Rs. 22,000/- on 23-5-80 and Rs. 23,000/- on 2-6-80. The amount so deposited by way of advance licence fee in respect of the licence for Ranikhet was Rs. 66,250/-. In addition to the aforesaid amount of advance instalment, the petitioners also furnished a Bank guarantee to the tune of Rs. 39,750/- on 2-6-80 to meet the requirements of para 642 of the Excise Manual. Thereafter, the petitioners received the requisite licence on 3-6-80 and applied for and obtained the authority to purchase foreign liquor and they purchased liquor on the basis of the said authority and sold the same both at Almorah town and Ranikhet town to F.L 5 licensees. They continued with their business and went on depositing instalments to the tune of Rs. 1,85,520/-. A sum equal to Rs. 79,480/- remained unpaid in respect of Ranikhet licence. There is no dispute relating to licence in respect of Almorah and the present writ petition is confined to the licence in respect of Ranikhet alone. It is the balance amounting to Rs. 79,480/- which is sought to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue and by means of the present petition, the petitioners have sought for a writ of certiorari quashing the entire recovery proceedings and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by them as aforesaid. 9. We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. B. Mathur learn ed standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. 9. We have heard Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri K. B. Mathur learn ed standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 10. The first contention raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the amount sought to be recovered not being due on account of any concluded contract between the petitioners and the respondents with regard to grant of exclusive privilege for wholesale vend of foreign liquor viz. the licences in Form F.L.-2 in respect of the town of Ranikhet cannot be recovered under S. 39 of the Act. It is urged that no concluded contract came into being inasmuch as the petitioners withdrew their offer before it was finally sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner and to lend strength to this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners. has placed reliance upon a letter dated 19-5-80 addressed to the Excise Commissioner U.P. Lucknow expressing their inability to run the F.L.-2 shop at Ranikhet and praying for cancellation of the licence aforesaid a also upon a telegram dated 8-6-1980 sent to the Excise Commissioner, U.P. whereby Sri Madan Mohan Agarwal, a partner of D.L. Shah and Party Almorah. had intimated the Excise Commissioner their withdrawal from Ranikhet F.L.-2 shop with immediate effect. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is founded upon the assumption that except under and in accordance with the terms of a concluded contract the petitioners cannot be held liable to pay the amount sought to be recovered from them as arrears of land revenue under S. 39 of the Act. A conspectus of the relevant provisions in the Excise Manual, however, leads us to conclude otherwise. 11. It is therefore, necessary as well as useful to examine those provisions of the Excise Manual which deal with the auction system of grant of exclusive privileges in foreign liquor. Paragraph 368(1) of the Excise Manual provides that the licence fee for the whole sale vend of foreign liquor to wholesale and retail vendors. and for the retail vend of the commodities specified in Cls. (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the said sub-paras under the auction system, shall be fixed by public auction periodically. However, the right to grant any licence on payment of fixed fee or fee determined in accordance with the graduated or uniform scale or by tender or by tender-cum-auction system is reserved with the Excise Commissioner. (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the said sub-paras under the auction system, shall be fixed by public auction periodically. However, the right to grant any licence on payment of fixed fee or fee determined in accordance with the graduated or uniform scale or by tender or by tender-cum-auction system is reserved with the Excise Commissioner. Paragraph 368 of the Excise Manual in so far as it is quoted as below for better understanding of the controversy involved in the case : "368- 6(6) The final acceptance of any bid is subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner which in its turn is subject to the decision of the State Government in appeal or revision, if any. (7) Every person bidding will be held to his bid whether it be highest or not and all such bids shall remained valid till the final decision of the Excise Commissioner or for a period of sixty days whichever is earlier. (8) A sum equal to one-fourth of the bid offered by the highest bidder shall be paid in advance as security for due performance of the contract out of which two-third, shall be paid immediately on the fall of hammer in cash. If the Collector recommends the second highest bid for sanction by the Excise Commissioner. the second highest bidder will also be required to deposit the security amount as mentioned above. (10) The licence fees shall be payable in such equal instalments as are specified in the licence. In case the payment of due instalment is not made by 20th day of the month the same shall be recovered from the security deposit of the licensee. (11) In case of default to pay the security deposit as mentioned in sub-rules (8) to (10) within the time specified, the auction and in case a licence has been issued the licence shall stand cancelled and the deposit, if any, shall be forfeited to the Government. Re-auction or alternative arrangements shall be made at the risk of the original auction purchaser. All monetary losses resulting from re-auction or alternative arrangement or from the licence remaining unsold for want of bidders shall be recoverable from the original auction purchaser as arrears of land revenue. 7(5)(b)- Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate should be accepted. But this provision is subject to two important considerations. All monetary losses resulting from re-auction or alternative arrangement or from the licence remaining unsold for want of bidders shall be recoverable from the original auction purchaser as arrears of land revenue. 7(5)(b)- Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate should be accepted. But this provision is subject to two important considerations. Firstly care should be taken to exclude bids obviously in excess of fair market value of the licence or farm or which are the results of speculation or rivalry. The acceptance of such bids, even if the bidders fulfil their engagements, is immediately injurious to the interests of the consumer and ultimately to the Excise Revenue. This precaution is particularly necessary in the case of farming contracts which are worked by means of sub-settlements made by the farmer. Secondly, it is necessary to guard against the acceptance of bids which may have the effect of constituting an overt or covert monopoly and against the acceptance of licence holders of undesirable persons of doubtful solvency. No person whose name appears upon the district of State defaulters' list shall be allowed to bid. (8)(a) Of any person whose bid has been accepted at the auction fails to furnish the requisite security deposit or fails to complete win stipulated time the required formalities, the Collector may sell the contract immediately or on any subsequent date fixed by him. (8)(b) The defaulting purchaser shall be debarred from bidding for the same or any other licence within the period of five years from the date of default and may with the prior sanction of the Collector be prosecuted under S. 18 of the Indian Penal Code but in every case the defaulter shall be called upon to show-cause why he should not be prosecuted for the said offence before he is actually prosecuted thereunder. A consolidated list of defaulting purchasers along with their addresses, debarred under the sub-rule from participating in auction, shall be circulated by Excise Commissioner to all the Collectors before the date of auction every year. (9) Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate should be accepted. The officer conducting the sales shall, however, record the reasons for not accepting the highest bid if he accepts the second highest bid. (9) Where no reason to the contrary exists, the highest bid, if adequate should be accepted. The officer conducting the sales shall, however, record the reasons for not accepting the highest bid if he accepts the second highest bid. All such bids shall, however, be reported to the Excise Commissioner's decision whether a bid is adequate or not, shall be final. (10) When after due weight has given to the foregoing considerations, a bid has been finally or provisionally accepted at an auction, no subsequent offers in respect of the same engagement should be considered. The practise of nominally accepting a bid at the auction and then negotiating privately with other competitors for higher offers is legally indefensible and in all respects objectionable. If an adequate price is offered by the highest suitable bidder it should be accepted otherwise the licence should be withdrawn for resale at a subsequent date or for settlement by tender. Competitors must be given to understand that when a bid is once accepted the matters cannot be accepted reopened and that they must be prepared to go to the full extent they propose to offer before the close of the auction. 12. The next relevant provision is paragraph 373 of the Oanual which contains general conditions as to auction of liquor. Suffice it to say that paragraph 373 of the Manual also contains conditions as to auction and the consequences of default in payment of licence fee etc. similar and identical to those contained in paragraph 368. General rules for conducting sales are enumerated in paragraph 374 of the Manual. 13. Another important thing worthy of being extracted here for proper appreciation of the case is condition No. 4(b) of the conditions notified at the auction. A copy of the general condition of auction as notified, has been filed as Annexure 1 to the supplementary counter affidavit. Paragraph 4(b) being germane to the controversy raised in the case is quoted below. `Yadi Dukan Ek Samooh Me Neelam Ki Jati he Aur Bad Me Kisi Karanvash Samooh Ki Koi Dukan Band Ki Jati He To Ukt Band Ki Gai Dukan Ke Anugyapan Shulk Ke Bhuktan Ka Uttardayitva Us Anugyapi Ka Hoga Juke Nam Me Samooh Oe Neelam Ki Gai Dukano Ki Antim Boli Swikrat Hui Ho." 14. `Yadi Dukan Ek Samooh Me Neelam Ki Jati he Aur Bad Me Kisi Karanvash Samooh Ki Koi Dukan Band Ki Jati He To Ukt Band Ki Gai Dukan Ke Anugyapan Shulk Ke Bhuktan Ka Uttardayitva Us Anugyapi Ka Hoga Juke Nam Me Samooh Oe Neelam Ki Gai Dukano Ki Antim Boli Swikrat Hui Ho." 14. The grant of exclusive or other privileges in respect of foreign liquor within the meaning of S. 24A of the Act is subject to the provision of S. 31. The Act is a complete Code in itself relating to import, export, transport, manufacture, sale and possession of intoxicating liquor and intoxicating drugs. We cannot possibly go outside the provision of the Act and the Excise Manual to determine the rights and liabilities of the parties in the matters relating to grant of exclusive privilege to sell liquor on the authority of relevant licence issued in accordance with law. The principles of Indian Contract Act in so far as they are not in tune with the provisions of the Act and of the U.P. Excise Manual are impliedly and necessarily excluded for it is well settled that a matter covered by Special Law is regulated by such Law and the general law is necessarily excluded in so far as the matter is covered by the Special Law. 15. That the rules extracted hereinbefore are of statutory character. was not disputed before us at the bar. An analysis of these rules and conditions of auction sale makes it amply clear that a bidder by offering a bid which is provisionally accepted, incurs the liability to pay the excise revenue recoverable as arrears of land revenue under S. 39 of the Act in terms of the rules and conditions of auction sale referred to hereinbefore and such liability is independently of any contractual obligation arising out of valid contract which may come into existence upon the bid being finally sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner. Although the final acceptance of any bid is subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner, the power to grant or refuse sanction is not arbitrary. It is regulated and controlled by the object and purpose of the Act and the guidelines prescribed in this regard in the rules referred to hereinbefore. Although the final acceptance of any bid is subject to the sanction of the Excise Commissioner, the power to grant or refuse sanction is not arbitrary. It is regulated and controlled by the object and purpose of the Act and the guidelines prescribed in this regard in the rules referred to hereinbefore. A bidder whose offer is provisionally accepted can challenge the order refusing the sanction on the ground of the order being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Thus, a bidder whose bid is provisionally accepted not only incurs certain liabilities, both Civil and Criminal (as per sub-para 3(1) of paragraph 374 of the Manual), in the event any breach being committed by him of the conditions as to payment of the licence fee in terms of the rules and conditions of auction sale referred to above. but he also acquires the right of his bid being finally sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner in terms of these very rules and conditions read with Article 14 of the Constitution. The liability and the right referred to above arise and flow also from the statutory rules and conditions of sale and are quite independent of rights and liabilities flowing and arising out of a concluded contract between the parties. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is, in our opinion. m isconceived. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Bhimsen Walaiti Ram, AIR 1971 SC 2295 in support of his contention. In the said case, an auction for a country liquor shop was held in pursuance of the conditions of "Auction of Excise Shops in Delhi for the year 1949-50". Cis. 21, 22, 31 and 33 of R. 5.34 of the relevant Rules in the said case were as under (at page SC 2296: AIR 1971) Clause 21 of Rule 5.34 "A person to whom a shop has been sold shall pay one-sixth of the annual fee within seven days of the auction (any deposits already made shall be credited to this sum, and any excess shall be either returned to him or credited to future payments). By the 7th of the month in which he begins his business under his licence and by the 7th of every subsequent month the licensee shall pay one-twelfth of the annual fee till the whole fee is paid. But he may at any time pay the whole amount due if he wishes. If the total amount due Bess than Rs. 100, it shall be payable in k,ne sum unless the Collector for special reasons, allows payment to be made in instalments. If any person whose bid has been accepted by the officer presiding at the auction fails to make the deposit of one-sixth of the annual fee, or if he refuses to accept the licence, the Collector may resell the license, either by public auction or by private contract, and any deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale or attempted resale shall be recoverable from the defaulting bidder i n the manner laid down in S. 60 of the Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914 as applied to the Delhi Province." Clause 22 When a licence has been cancelled, the Collector may resell it by public auction or by private contract and any deficiency in price and all expenses of such resale or attempted resale shall be recoverable from the defaulting licensee in the manner laid down in S. 60 of the Excise Act as applied to the Delhi Province." Clause 31 "The Chief Commissioner is under no obligation to grant any license until he is assured of financial status of the bidder. At the conclusion of the auction an enquiry will be made into the financial position of any bidder not known to the Excise staff and any such bidder shall if necessary be called upon to furnish security for the observance of the terms of his licence as required by sub-sec. (2) of S. 34 of the Punjab Excise Act 1 of 1914, as extended to Delhi Province." Clause 33 "All final bids will be made subject to the confirmation by the Chief Commissioner who may reject any bid without assigning any reasons. If no hid is accepted for any shop, the Chief Commissioner reserves the right to dispose it of.by tender or otherwise as he thinks fit....... 17. If no hid is accepted for any shop, the Chief Commissioner reserves the right to dispose it of.by tender or otherwise as he thinks fit....... 17. According to the rules made under the Act as contained in the U.P. Excise Manual, a prior confirmation of hid is not a condition precedent for the deposit of the requisite advance instalment amounting to one-fourth of the bid money as contemplated by sub-rule (8) of R. 6 of paragraph 368 of the Oanual. The rules under the U.P. Excise Act are different from that of the Rules under the Punjab Excise Act I of 1914 as extended to the Delhi Province. In the present case, the bid was not only provisionally accepted but the petitioners deposited the advance money. obtained licence and transacted business on that basis and the bid was also sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner on 13-6-80. Having transacted business on the basis of the licence granted in their favour, the petitioners cannot be permitted to wriggle out of their li abilities envisaged under R. 6(11) of paragraph 368 of the Manual and by paragraph 4(b) of the general conditions of the auction of which the petitioners do not dispute prior notice and full knowledge. The petitioners would be held to their bid in terms of para 4(b) supra apart from being liable to pay the licence fee under R. 6(11) of para 368 of the Excise Manual. The accrual of liability under condition No. 4(b) or under R. 6(11) of para 368 was not dependent upon sanction of the bid by the Excise Commissioner. It is true that para 368 as quoted above was with effect from 5-5-84 but the last part of R. 6(11) only prescribes a mode of recovery hence it is procedural in nature and therefore can be relied on for the substance of the recovery as arrears of land revenue and we can take notice of the amended provision. 18. Next authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his first contention is : State of U.P. v. Kishori Lal, AIR 1980 SC 680 . In this case, the highest bidder Kishori Lal did not at all deposit one-sixth of the bid money as required under para 357 of the Excise Manual and the two groups of shops for which he had offered the highest bid had to be resold. In this case, the highest bidder Kishori Lal did not at all deposit one-sixth of the bid money as required under para 357 of the Excise Manual and the two groups of shops for which he had offered the highest bid had to be resold. The re-sale fetched lesser amount and the short-fall was sought to be recovered by means of a suit which was decreed by the trial Court, but on appeal the High Court dismissed the suit holding that there was no valid contract, which could be enforced by the plaintiff as the requirements of Article 299(1) of the Constitution, had not been complied with. The State of U.P. went up in appeal by certificate to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court held that so far as the liability to pay excise revenue under R. 357 of the Excise Manual is concerned, it could not be enforced because the said rule had no statutory force for want of its publication under S. 77 of the Act. The Supreme Court held that since R. 357 was not published under S. 77 of the Act, it must be held that there was no law under which the bidder could be asked to make amends for the short-falls. The majority judgment of the Supreme Court, further held that no concluded contract came into existence in accordance with the requirements of Article 299(1) of the Constitution of India and therefore. the State was not entitled to recover the amount on the ground of alleged breach of contract as well. In the instant case as already noticed above, not only the initial deposit was made by the petitioner, but they obtains the licence and transacted business on that basis. Their request contained in the letter dated 18-5-90, appears to have been waived by them in view oft heir subsequent conduct in depositing the amount in terms of paragraph 642 of the Excise Manual and in obtaining the requisite license and transacting business on that basis. This application was also not relied on in the main writ petition. So far as the request contained in telegram dated 8-6-80 is concerned it too was rejected. vide order dated 19-6-90, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter- affidavit. This application was also not relied on in the main writ petition. So far as the request contained in telegram dated 8-6-80 is concerned it too was rejected. vide order dated 19-6-90, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter- affidavit. However, neither the letter dated 18-5-80 nor the telegram dated 8-6-80 could absolve the petitioners of the liability fastened upon them in terms of R. 6(11) of paragraph 368 of the Excise Manual and Cl. 4(b) of the conditions of sale extracted hereinbefore. 19. The learned counsel for the petitioners then cited two Division Bench Decisions of this court. One in the case of Udai Bhan Jaiswal v. State of U.P., reported in 1983 UPTC 436 and the other in the case of Dhumman Ram alias Badri Prasad v. State of U.P., reported in 1979 UPTC 1033 . In Udai Bhan Jaiswal's case the shop was run for three months on the basis of the provisional licence. A murder took place in the locality where after the State authorities did not permit the licensee to run his shop and ultimately, he was directed to shift his shop to another place, which he declined and withdrew from the licence due to change in the conditions of licence. The Division Bench held that the licensee was not at fault and he could not perform his part of contract due to any fault on his part and therefore, he could not be held for the licence fee or the shortfall. 20. In Dhumman's case, a Division Bench of this Court held that a loss due to withdrawal by licensee before acceptance of bid by the Excise Commissioner and consequential resale is not excise revenue being not an amount due on account of a concluded contract and therefore, it was not recoverable under S. 39 of the Act. The Division Bench in Dhumman's case has not examined the liability of the licensee of that case arising on the basis of statutory rules such as the one contained in R. 6( 11) of para 368 of the Excise Manual read with condition No. 4(b) as already quoted here-in-before. These decisions too do not help the petitioners. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the case of Excise Commissioner U.P. v. Ranjeet Singh Gujral, 1984 EFR 210 : AIR 1983 SC 1056 . These decisions too do not help the petitioners. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon the case of Excise Commissioner U.P. v. Ranjeet Singh Gujral, 1984 EFR 210 : AIR 1983 SC 1056 . In this case, the bids were not even provisionally accepted inasmuch as the Deputy Commissioner of Excise Allahabad in his report dated 26th March, 1983 had submitted that the bids were low and would result in a loss of revenue to the Government, if accepted. On the basis of the said report, the Excise Commissioner had cancelled the auction on 28-3-83. Thus, neither the bid was provisionally accepted nor any licence was issued, nor any business was transacted in the said case and therefore, in our opinion, this authority too is of no assistance to the petitioners. There does not appear to be any such condition in Ranjeet Singh's case (supra) as condition No. 4(b) notified in the present case. 22. In State of Haryana v. Jage Ram, AIR 1980 SC 2018 , the Supreme Court held that "the High Court was in error in entertaining the writ petition for the purpose of examining whether the respondent could avoid their contractual liability by challenging the rules under which the bids offered by them were accepted and under which they become entitled to conduct their business. It cannot ever be that a licensee can work out the licence if he finds it profitable to do so, and he can challenge the conditions under which' he agreed to have the licence, if he finds it commercially in expedient to conduct his business." In view of this, assuming for the sake of argument that no concluded contract came into existence, the petitioners were still liable in terms of paragraph 4(b) of the general conditions of auction as notified to all concerned at the time of auction. The writ jurisdiction is not a forum to be invoked for avoiding such a liability. 23. The scheme of the Act and the rules contained in the U.P. Excise Manual do contemplate that a bidder shall be held to his bid and he cannot be permitted to wriggle out of his liability under the general conditions of auction as notified at the time of auction and as contained in paragraphs 368, 373, 374 of the Excise Manual. Such liability can be enforced independent of any contractual liability. Such liability can be enforced independent of any contractual liability. S. 39 of the Act postulates recovery of all excise revenue including all amounts due to the Government by any person on account of any contract relating to the excise revenue, as arrears of land revenue. The expression" Excise Revenue" has been defined in S. 3(1) of the Act to mean revenue derived or derivable from any duty, fee, tax, fine (other than a fine imposed by a Court of law), or confiscation imposed or ordered under the provisions of the Act, or any other law for the time being in force relating to liquor or intoxicating drugs. The bid offered in the present case was by way of a licence fee for grant of privilege. This was recoverable from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue under S. 39 of the Act on the basis of their liability under the rules and the conditions of auction set out here-in-before, irrespective of whether or not a concluded contract came into existence. The rules provide that every person bidding will be held to his bid and such bid shall remain valid till the final decision of the Excise Commissioner or for a period of 60 days, whichever is earlier. Further, the expression "all monetary losses resulting from re-auction or alternative arrangement or from the licences remaining unsold" occurring in paragraph 368(11) of the Manual is wide enough to cover all gamuts of losses resulting in revenue on account of default of a bidder in the payment of licence fee, whose bid is provisionally accepted. The highest bidder can be relieved of this liability only in the event of his bid being not finally sanctioned by the Excise Commissioner, not due to the faults of the bidder, but due to the reasons affecting revenue or other considerations found relevant by the Excise Commissioner for the purpose of not sanctioning the bid. 24. In the State of Haryana v. Lal Chand, AIR 1984 SC 1326 , the Supreme Court held that the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is not intended to facilitate avoidance of obligation voluntarily incurred. The Supreme Court in the said case further held that one of the important purposes of selling exclusive right to vend liquor in whole-sale or retail, is to raise revenue. The Supreme Court in the said case further held that one of the important purposes of selling exclusive right to vend liquor in whole-sale or retail, is to raise revenue. It went on to hold that the licence fee is a price for acquiring such privilege and one, who makes a bid for the grant of such privilege, with full knowledge of the terms and conditions attaching to the auction, cannot be permitted to wriggle out of the contractual obligation arising out of the acceptance of the bid. 25. In State of Haryana v. Lal Chand (supra), the Supreme Court has held that Article 299(1) of the Constitution, does not apply to a case, where a particular statutory authority as distinct from the Union or the States, enters into a contract which is statutory in nature. Such a contract even though it is for securing the interest of the Union or the States, is not a contract which has been entered into by or on behalf of the Union or the States in exercise of its executive powers. 26. When a bidder offers a bid knowing it fully well that under the rules, if his bid is provisionally accepted, he will have to deposit the advance licence fee that the fall of the hammer in his favour as contemplated by the rules and will also be liable to damages in the event of non-payment of the advance instalment or any other instalment. He binds himself to the conditions by mere fact of entering into the area of the auction by offering a bid and he cannot be allowed to wriggle out of the aforesaid binding obligation. 27. The second contention on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the amount sought to be recovered, is not recoverable as arrears of land revenue under S. 39 of the Act being not an amount due on account of a concluded contract. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is again misconceived inasmuch as S. 39 of the Act visualises recovery of all excise revenues including all amounts due to the Government by any person on account of any contract relating to the excise revenue. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, is again misconceived inasmuch as S. 39 of the Act visualises recovery of all excise revenues including all amounts due to the Government by any person on account of any contract relating to the excise revenue. Here, as we have already set out above, the licence money offered by the petitioners was in the nature of excise revenue and the petitioners were bound to pay the licence money, even if it be held that no concluded contract came into being. The liability of the petitioners to pay the balance of the excise revenue accrues as we have said above, on the basis of the statutory rules and for the accrual of this liability existence of a concluded contract was not necessary. The second clause of S. 39 beginning from the words "in the case of default made by holders of a licence", confers a discretion upon the Collector to take back the grant for which the licence was given and put it under an alternative management at the risk of the defaulter or to declare the grant forfeited and resell at the risk or loss of the defaulter. The Collector is not bound to take recourse to this alternative contemplated by S. 39 of the Act. He may proceed to recover the balance of the licence money from the defaulter in terms of paragraph 368(11) read with condition No. 4(b) referred to hereinbefore. The second contention too raised on behalf of the petitioners is therefore untenable. 28. Now coming down to the third and the last contention raised on behalf of the petitioners, the learned counsel submitted that the department being liable to re auctioning the shop in the event of default being committed by the petitioners in the payment of instalments and having failed to do so, was not entitled to recover the balance of the licence fee, inasmuch as that it is well settled that anyone who claims damages must mitigate damages. The contention of the learned counsel is that had the department re-auctioned the shop, it is quite possible that there would not have occurred any short-fall or in any event the difference would have reduced. Necessary foundation in relation to this contention have not been laid in the writ petition. The contention of the learned counsel is that had the department re-auctioned the shop, it is quite possible that there would not have occurred any short-fall or in any event the difference would have reduced. Necessary foundation in relation to this contention have not been laid in the writ petition. Nowhere in the writ petition, it is alleged that the shops could not be auctioned due to the fault of the department. On the contrary, it is specifically averred in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit to the following effect. That the petitioners were informed in reply to the telegram that under existing rules they could not surrender their F.L.-2 licence for Ranikhet without depositing the entire amount of Rs. 2,65,000/- of the auction bid for Ranikhet..... They were also informed that the re-auction of the said shop will be done at their risk and if the bid in the re-auction be less than Rs. 2,65,000/-, the difference will be deducted from the amount deposited by them towards the Government account and they will be entitled to receive the remaining amount only and as such they were directed to deposit the entire bid amount in the treasury within three days so that their request be considered accordingly..... but the petitioners failed to act according to the instructions issued to them in Annexure-2 referred to above. On the contrary, the petitioners in view of the prospects of their business were not in favour of re-auction of Ranikhet F.L.-2 shop as they wanted to maintain their monopoly in Almorah district as the sole F. L-2 licensee. In fact, they wanted to abolish Ranikhet F.L.-2 shop thereby conducting the entire business from Almorah town and thus wanted to save the licence fee for Ranikhet shop for which they had themselves offered the bid of Rs. 2,65,000/- at the time of auction." It is thus evident that the department cannot be said to be at fault. The respondents were entitled to recover the entire amount of licence fee offered by the petitioners in terms of R. 6(11) of paragraph 368 read with condition 4 (b). Thus the third contention of the petitioners too is devoid of any merit and cannot be sustained. 29. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs on parties. The interim order dated 25-10-80 is hereby discharged. Thus the third contention of the petitioners too is devoid of any merit and cannot be sustained. 29. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with costs on parties. The interim order dated 25-10-80 is hereby discharged. The petitioners are allowed one month's time to deposit the amount sought to be recovered in the impugned recovery proceedings, failing which the respondents shall be at liberty to proceed with the recovery of the amount in accordance with law.