G. R. BHATTERCHARJEE, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal being FMAT No. 2119/96 directed against the order dated 24. 6. 1996 passed by B. P. Banerjee, J. in C. O. No. 9850 (W) of 1996, by which the learned trial Judge allowed the writ application filed by the respondent herein (G. Mohandas) and cancelled the impugned order dated the 15th April, 1996 by which the auction in question was cancelled and also directed the respondent who are appellants herein to take steps pursuant to the order passed by the Lieutenant Governor, Andaman and Nicobar Islands dated the 12th March, 1996 within a specified period. ( 2 ) ON the 7th February, 1996 the Deputy Commission at Port Blair, Andaman published an auction notice notifying that the right to vend beer, wines and other foreign liquor including Indian made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) in the shops at 13 specified locations at different places as mentioned therein for the period from the 1st April, 1996 to 31st March, 1997 would be sold by auction in one lot as a single auction to be held on 22. 2. 1996 at the Conference Hall of the Deputy Commissioner's Office at Port Blair. It was mentioned in the said auction notice that the presiding officer reserved the right to accept or reject the highest bid without any reason (annexure-F to the Writ petition ). The terms and conditions subject to which bids were invited at the said auction and the license would be granted, were referred to in that notice. It was mentioned in the terms and conditions that a licence would be issued under Rule 9 of the Andaman Excise Rules, 1934 in accordance with the contract of sale. Clause 6 (n) of the terms and conditions provides inter alia that the highest bidder shall deposit 50% of the money minus Rs. 75,00,000 of earnest money already deposited by him on the fall of the hammer and the remaining bid money would be deposited by him in five equal monthly instalments on or before 10th of every month starting with April 1996, failing which interest would be charged at the Bank's rate. It was also mentioned therein that acceptance of 50% of the bid money on the date of bid would not however be construed as acceptance of the bid. It was also mentioned therein that acceptance of 50% of the bid money on the date of bid would not however be construed as acceptance of the bid. In clause 6 (s) it was mentioned that the successful bidder would enter into an agreement with the licensing authority to bind himself to the terms and conditions of the auction. ( 3 ) AFTER the publication of the aforesaid auction notice one Krishna Rao filed a writ petition being C. O. No. 12 (W) of 1996 against the Deputy Commissioner and Others raising grievance against the single lot of auction for all the 13 shops. By order dated the 19th November, 1996 in the said C. O. No. 12 (W) of 1996. N. K. Mitra, J. directed the matter to come up in the list for hearing on 29th February, 1996 and also recorded that in the meantime, if any auction took place that would abide by the result of the writ petition. In that writ petition the respondent herein was also added as a respondent. Auction was held, as per the publication of auction notice, on 22nd February, 1996. The respondent herein offered bid in that auction and he was the highest bidder, his bid amount Rs. 3,09,20,000. As per the terms of the auction notice the respondent herein, who is the writ petitioner in the writ case from which this appeal arises, then deposited a sum of Rs. 1,54,60,000 on the spot. The respondent herein was thereafter awaiting invitation from the Deputy Commissioner for entering into an agreement for vending liquor for the year 1996-1997 as the successful bidder in the auction and for grant of necessary licence for the said year. On 15th March, 1996 he had been to the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Port Blair and there he was arrested by the police pursuant to a warrant of arrest issued by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur in connection with one FIR lodged at Nagpur, being crime No. 53/96, at the instance of the State Excise (Departmental Flying Squad), Nagpur Division, Nagpur. Certain Excise officers from Nagpur were also present when the petitioner was arrested on 15th March, 1996 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Port Blair. Certain Excise officers from Nagpur were also present when the petitioner was arrested on 15th March, 1996 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner at Port Blair. On that very day he was produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair who ordered for his production before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Nagpur and on 16th March, 1996 the writ petitioner was taken away from Port Blair and was ultimately produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur on 18th March, 1996 in connection with the said crime No. 53/96 and he was granted ad-interim bail on condition that he would not leave Nagpur for a period of 10 days and would make himself available at Nagpur for the purpose of interrogation by the Investigating Officer. In course of time the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman issued order No. 336 dated the 15th April, 1996 regarding cancellation of the entire auction proceedings held on 22nd February, 1996 and also issued on the same date a public notice being No. 7-143/ls/95/1289 for the information of all concerned that the auction held on 22. 2. 1996 stood cancelled due to administrative reasons annexure-JJ to the writ petition ). Being aggrieved by the said order No. 336 and the said public notice, both dated the 15th April, 1996 the writ petitioner G. Mahandas filed the writ petition, giving rise to the present appeal, for quashing the same and for direction upon the respondent authorities to allow the writ petitioner to run the business of vending IMFL at Andaman and Nicobar Islands on the basis of the auction held on 22nd February, 1996 and to take steps for execution of agreement in terms of the said auction. As already mentioned, the learned trial judge by the impugned order dated the 24th June, 1996 allowed the writ petition quashing the said order and public notice, both dated the 15th March, 1996 and virtually directed the respondents to enter into an agreement with the writ petitioner on the basis of auction held on the 22nd February, 1996. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants who are the Union of India and the authorities of the Andaman Administration have preferred the present appeal. Being aggrieved by the said order the appellants who are the Union of India and the authorities of the Andaman Administration have preferred the present appeal. Apart from the incidents described above a lot of events, having bearing on the question involved in the matter took place in the months of February, and March 1996 and even thereafter which also we will have to take stock of for appreciating the turn of events leading the matter to the position where ultimately it found itself to be. ( 4 ) WHILE the matters relating to the auction and the processes connected therewith were proceeding in the normal course of things, certain events were developing elsewhere in a different arena in February, March, 1996. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner of State Excise, Nagpur sent a fax message together with xerox copies of five import permits bearing Nos. 4299 to 4303 purportingly issued from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman in the name of G. Mohandas and in that fax message the Andaman administration was requested to ascertain the genuineness of the said permits and the revalidation entries thereon. Since the said fax message was not in the official letter pad, the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman advised the Nagpur authorities to send the concerned message on their official letter pad through the collector of Nagpur. Subsequently, after cross-checking of records the office of the Deputy Commissioner came to the conclusion that the said permits were all fake and fake forms were used, fake despatch numbers had been incorporated and the signatures of Deputy Commissioner and the dealing Assistant were forged. This was also communicated to the State Excise Authorities at Nagpur by fax message on or about 23. 3. 96. Sri B. S. Talang, Inspector of State Excise, Nagpur informed the Andaman administration by letter dated 27. 2. 96 that 3,250 boxes of IMFL items against fake import permits while being sent to the G. Mohandas, had been seized by them and crime No. 53/96 under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 had been duly registered. It may be mentioned here that the said crime No. 53/96 was registered on 23. 2. 96 at Nagpur implicating one Acchelal, one B. S. Puwiya who are officers of the Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. , G. Mahandas and others. Involvement of Excise officer was also suspected. It may be mentioned here that the said crime No. 53/96 was registered on 23. 2. 96 at Nagpur implicating one Acchelal, one B. S. Puwiya who are officers of the Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. , G. Mahandas and others. Involvement of Excise officer was also suspected. It will appear that the said crime case was registered by lodging FIR with police under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 as it was detected that huge quantity of IMFL/worth about Rs. 65,00,000 was being taken in five trucks under the fake import permits in the name of G. Mohandas purporting to have been granted by the Andaman administration. The revalidation of the permits were also found to be fake. The Inspector of State Excise Nagpur, B. S. Talang addressed a letter dated the 27th February, 1996 to G. Mohandas informing about the seizure of IMFL items being exported to him (G. Mohandas) by Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. Kedia Nagar, Kumhari, Dist. Durg, Madhya Pradesh and registration of crime No. 53/96 under the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. In that letter G. Mahandas was requested to appear before the Inspector of State Excise, Nagpur along with necessary document of previous import from Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. which company was exporting the seized IMFL items. It was also mentioned in the said letter of the said Inspector of State Excise that the presence of G. Mohandas was required as an accused person in the said crime No. 53/96. That letter was served on Sri Gangadharan, the power-of-attorney-holder of G. Mahandas at Port Blair by Andaman administration. The Divisional Deputy Commissioner of State Excise, Nagpur by his letter dated 28. 2. 96 informed the Andaman administration that one B. S. Poovaiah, Deputy General Manager, Bangalore and one Acchelal Maji, Supervisor of Kumhari liquor manufacturing unit of Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. had been arrested at Nagpur and crime No. 53/96 had been registered against them and others, being Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. , the Chairman of the Company and others, Ramgopal Sharma (Vice President), Anand Mishra (General Manager), G. M. Rao (Production Manager), Sumit Modak (Sales Magager) and G. Mohandas. Attested copies of certain documents were also forwarded to the Andaman administration such as statement dated 22. 2. Attested copies of certain documents were also forwarded to the Andaman administration such as statement dated 22. 2. 96 of Sri Poovaiah, Permit Sales Register, Andaman and Nicobar Islands maintained in the office of Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd. at Bangalore etc. and on examination of the said register and the despatch register maintained in the District office at Port Blair, it was detected again by the Andaman administration that import permits bearing Nos. 4274 to 4303 dated 14. 9. 95 (30 in number) were fake and forged. Thereafter, as we have seen, two officers of the State Excise, Nagpur came to Port Blair with warrant of arrest issued against G. Mahandas by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Nagpur and G. Mohandas was accordingly arrested on 15. 3. 96 at the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair and was then produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Port Blair and was ultimately transported and produced before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, as we have seen the auction matter was proceeding in its own way and G. Mohandas on 22. 2. 96 offered the highest bid in the auction and also made the necessary deposit and thereafter the same was being considered separately regarding the question of finally accepting the bid and of finalising the matter. In that connection the effect of the pendency of the said C. O. 12 (W) of 1996 and the interim order passed therein was also being considered by the Andaman Administration. The opinion of the Judicial Secretary Andaman was also obtained in the matter. On 11. 3. 96 the Secretary (Excise), Andaman in his note observed that the D. C. Andaman might enter into an agreement with the successful bidder of the liquor auction and issue a license to the said successful bidder of vending IMFL in the Union Territory for the year 1996-97 after incorporating a condition that the agreement thus entered into and the license thus issued would be subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. He also proposed an alternative course of action to request the High Court to clarify as to whether the administration could enter into an agreement with the successful bidder of the liquor auction and issue license to the said bidder during the pendency of the writ petition. He also proposed an alternative course of action to request the High Court to clarify as to whether the administration could enter into an agreement with the successful bidder of the liquor auction and issue license to the said bidder during the pendency of the writ petition. The file was then placed before the Chief Secretary Narendra Prasad who endorsed the view of the Secretary (Excise) on 11. 3. 96 and thereafter the file was placed before the Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The Lieutenant Governor on 12. 3. 96 observed that if they did not confirm the auction, then the contractor would not get time to bring the materials from the mainland before 1st April, which could also lead to another litigation and that the Government Pleader who appeared before the court in the case also said that the court had not stopped the Authority from taking follow up action in the meantime. Accordingly the Lieutenant Governor on 12. 3. 96 approved the proposal of the Secretary (Excise) for formal acceptance of the highest bid of G. Mahandas and for entering into an agreement with him and also for granting him license to vend IMFL subject to the decision in the writ petition which was then pending. The learned trial Judge has in his impugned judgment noted these facts. However, after the order of the Lieutenant Governor the file was placed before the Chief Secretary who signed the same and thereafter a note was given that since the file was belonging to the District Office the same might therefore be marked to the D. C. , Andaman for taking necessary action as per order of the Lieutenant Governor. This fact that the Lieutenant Governor on 12. 3. 96 directed the administration to accept the bid of G. Mahandas and enter into an agreement with and also to issue license in his favour for 1996-97 as the successful bidder was not stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in the writ proceeding out of which the present appeal arises, but the learned trial Judge came to know of this fact during the hearing of the writ petition when the concerned file was produced by the administration for perusals of the court. The learned trial Judge is of the view that since the Lieutenant Governor on 12. 3. The learned trial Judge is of the view that since the Lieutenant Governor on 12. 3. 96 directed the officers of the administration in the file to accept the bid and enter into agreement regarding vending of IMFL etc. with G. Mohandas for the year 1996-97 and also to issue license to him accordingly it was incumbent upon the officers of the administration to carry out the direction, but instead of doing that the administration by the impugned order dated 15. 4. 96 improperly cancelled the entire auction proceeding thereby frustrating the order of the Lieutenant Governor dated 12. 3. 96. The learned Judge also found fault with the officers of the administration including the Chief Secretary and characterised their conduct in the matter as fraudulent and subversive of good administration, and liberally used harsh epithets in respect of them which in our opinion were not really warranted. It is to be mentioned here that Sri V. Purushottam, the Lieutenant Governor who directed in the file on 12. 3. 96 for grant of license for 1996-97 to G. Mohandas, vacated the office thereafter and Sm. R. Bajpayee who was the Lieutenant Governor of Pandicherry took additional charge as the Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands. The new Lieutenant Governor on 25. 3. 96 accepted the proposal of the Chief Secretary in the file to inter alia cancel the result of the auction held on 22. 2. 96 and this direction for cancellation of the result of auction was reflected in the impugned order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 15. 4. 96 by which the auction proceeding was cancelled. The learned trial Judge was very caustic in his remarks about the officers of the Andaman Administration including the Chief Secretary. The learned Judge was of the view the concerned officers including the Chief Secretary obtained the order for cancellation of the auction proceeding from the new Lieutenant Governor on 25. 3. 96 by exercising fraud and by suppressing the fact from her that the earlier Lieutenant Governor had already finalised the matter on 12. 3. 96 by directing that the bid be accepted and agreement for vending IMFL etc. be entered with G. Mohandas as successful bidder and a license for 1996-97 be issued in his favour accordingly. 3. 96 by exercising fraud and by suppressing the fact from her that the earlier Lieutenant Governor had already finalised the matter on 12. 3. 96 by directing that the bid be accepted and agreement for vending IMFL etc. be entered with G. Mohandas as successful bidder and a license for 1996-97 be issued in his favour accordingly. Of the lengthy and revetitive invectives recorded by the learned Judge the following is a random illustration :-"the most surprising part of it was that the said Narendra Prasad, Chief Secretary, suppressing the fact that earlier L. G. by his order dated 12. 3. 96 accepted the bid and directed the Department to enter into an agreement of which Narendra Prasad was a party and placed a proposal before Sm. Rajendra Bajpayee, the L. G. , who was in dual charge of Pondicherry and Andaman and in the note a proposal was given for cancellation of the auction held on 22. 2. 96 as also to blacklist the petitioner and Smt. Bajpayee approved the proposal given by the Chief Secretary. It is clear that the Chief Secretary is guilty of suppression of the order passed earlier by the earlier L. G. and by misrepresentation and playing trick obtained approval from the new L. G. as designed by them. It is a clear case whether Sm. Bajpayee the new L. G. who was in dual charge had acted on the machination motive of the officers who are all subordinates to the L. G. * * * In this case before notes placed before Sm. Bajpayee the new L. G. was kept in dark that the earlier L. G. has considered the matter looking into all pros and cons and passed the order which is a speaking order in his own hand writing. The earlier L. G. had not simply agreed and/or disagreed but he has considered the note given by the Chief Secretary on the basis of the facts as revealed from the file and on the basis whereof he passed the order. The earlier L. G. had not simply agreed and/or disagreed but he has considered the note given by the Chief Secretary on the basis of the facts as revealed from the file and on the basis whereof he passed the order. This order was not made known to the new L. G. and it is a case where a clear fraud was practised upon the new L. G. It is unthinkable that the Chief Secretary could be a party to a machinatious and ultra virus motive contrary to the final decision taken by the earlier L. G. It is a clear case where the Bureaucrats started playing a sinister game after departure of the earlier L. G. may come and L. G. may go but the order passed by the L. G. remains which is binding on all his subordinates and it is their duty to carry it out. Unfortunately, in this case, the order of the L. G. dated 12. 3. 96 was kept under the shoes of the Bureaucrats showing disrespect to the order passed by the earlier L. G. It is a clear case of gross misconduct on the part of the Chief Secretary and Law Officers subordinate to him in dealing with the matter, in the manner indicated above. This is a subversive for a good administration at least it is expected from I. A. S. Officers that they should act fairly reasonably and maintain discipline. * * * It is outside the scope of the writ jurisdiction to take action against these Officers but it is for the L. G. or the appropriate authority to initiate proceedings against these Officers who had played a sinister game and who had shown highest disrespect fan disregard to the order of the L. G. and with the change of L. G. the colour of these Officers also changed and they started moving in the matter to nullify the order passed by the L. G. which they are not competent to do so. The order passed by L. G. could not be allowed to be thrown into the waste paper busket or keep it under the shoes of the bureaucrats which has exactly been done in this case. The order passed by L. G. could not be allowed to be thrown into the waste paper busket or keep it under the shoes of the bureaucrats which has exactly been done in this case. " ( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge observed in the impugned judgment that it appeared that the then Lieutenant Governor V. Purushottam had resigned after March 12, 1996 and after his departure from the island 'a game was started by the bureaucrats'. We would now examine how far the learned trial Judge was justified in observing that the bureaucrats including the Chief Secretary obtained on 25. 3. 96 the order of cancellation of the result of auction held on 22. 2. 96 from the new Lieutenant Governor by concealing the fact that the matter had already been finalised by the earlier Lieutenant Governor on 12. 3. 96 in the file for entering into an agreement with G. Mohandas. ( 7 ) THERE is no doubt that the outgoing Lieutenant Governor immediately before he relinquished the office of the Lieutenant Governor directed in the office note on 12. 3. 96 for accepting the bid as also for entering into an agreement for the year 1996-97 with G. Mohandas and for issuing license accordingly. The question is whether this fact was concealed to the new Lieutenant Governor by the bureaucrats including the Chief Secretary. The file that went to the new Lieutenant Governor contained a note of the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) dated 22. 3. 96 which is annexure-I to the stay application. At the very beginning of that note reference was made by the said Assistant Commissioner (HQ) to the 'notes of the Secretary (Excise) from para 49-n to 51-n on pre-page and notes of the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor at para 53-n of pre-page'. In this context he also attracted attention to the enclosed linked file. It may be mentioned here that the para 49-n to para 51-n and para 53-n as referred to therein are the office notes and the note of the earlier Lieutenant Governor whereby he approved the proposal for accepting the bid of G. Mahandas as also for entering into agreement with G. Mahandas and for granting license to him for 1996-97. It may be mentioned here that the para 49-n to para 51-n and para 53-n as referred to therein are the office notes and the note of the earlier Lieutenant Governor whereby he approved the proposal for accepting the bid of G. Mahandas as also for entering into agreement with G. Mahandas and for granting license to him for 1996-97. When the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) at the very beginning of his note clearly and expressly referred to the file and the note regarding approval of the earlier Lieutenant Governor for entering into an agreement with G. Mohandas for 1996-97, there cannot be any question of suppression of that fact. Far from suppressing the approval and order of the earlier Lieutenant Governor, pointed attention was rather drawn to the same by the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) at the very beginning of his note dated 22. 3. 96 and even the linked file containing the notes in that connection and the order of the earlier Lieutenant Governor was also enclosed with the office note dated 22. 3. 96. We wonder, how therefore, there can be a charge of suppression of the order of the earlier Lieutenant Governor. ( 8 ) IN the said note dated 22. 3. 96 the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) recorded about the messages and communications received from the State Excise Department, Nagpur and how in view of such messages and intimation it was found on varification of the office records at Andaman that a large number of import permits (5+30=35) purporting to have been issued by the Andaman Administration and the purported revalidation of some permits, all purportingly standing in the name of G. Mohandas, were fake and forged and even the signatures of the Deputy Commissioner and the dealing assistant were forged. In the said note the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) also recorded that the State Excise, Nagpur informed Andaman administration about the lodging of crime case no. 53/96 at Nagpur under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 against a number of persons including G. Mohandas for export of IMFL by the manufacturer Kedia Castle Dellon Industries Ltd under fake permits. It was also mentioned in the said note inter alia that a non-bailable warrant was issued by the C. J. M. Nagpur to the Superintendent of Police, Port Blair for arresting G. Mohandas and the said warrant was executed and Mohandas was arrested on 15. 3. It was also mentioned in the said note inter alia that a non-bailable warrant was issued by the C. J. M. Nagpur to the Superintendent of Police, Port Blair for arresting G. Mohandas and the said warrant was executed and Mohandas was arrested on 15. 3. 96 and that S. P. Mooley, the Sub-Inspector, State Excise (Nagpur) requested the D. C. Andaman to seize all relevant records of fake permits and seal IMFL stocks in various shops and godowns of G. Mohandas and further that prior to this requisition the Andaman administration had given an opportunity to G. Mohandas to furnish all pending monthly stock statements, monthly volume of sales and the advice notes accompanying all consignments brought against the import permits, to the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair By 5 p. m. on 15. 3. 96 but G. Mohandas failed to submit the required statements. It is also recorded in the said note that in view of the letter of Sri S. P. Mooley Sub-Inspector (State Excise, Nagpur) to D. C. Andaman and in view of the persistent evasion of Sri Mohan Das to submit relevant records and documents D. C. Andaman authorised various officers to seize all relevant records and documents and seal all his shops and godowns until production of required records and documents to facilitate physical stock verification of his business premises. It may be recalled that in the year 1995-96 the license was granted to this very G. Mohandas as he was the highest bidder for that year. As a matter of fact even in 1994-95 as well as for broken period in 1993-94 G. Mohandas was granted license. The fake and forged permits by reason of which the crime case No. 53/96 was started against G. Mohandas and others related to the year 1995-96 for which Mohandas was granted license. In the said note of the Assistant Commissioner dated 22. 3. 96 reference was made to the compliance report in respect of seizure of documents and sealing of shops and godowns of Mohandas. It is also mentioned in that notice was given to G. Mohandas on 16. 3. 96 directing him to produce all relevant records and documents by 5 p. m. on 20. 3. 96, but the requisite information was not furnished by G. Mohandas before the stipulated deadline. Accordingly the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) in his said note dated 22. 3. It is also mentioned in that notice was given to G. Mohandas on 16. 3. 96 directing him to produce all relevant records and documents by 5 p. m. on 20. 3. 96, but the requisite information was not furnished by G. Mohandas before the stipulated deadline. Accordingly the Assistant Commissioner (HQ) in his said note dated 22. 3. 96 recorded a proposal that the license of G. Mohandas for the year 1995-96 should be cancelled forth with and he should be black-listed from participation in all future auctions. It was also proposed in the said note that the auction for the year 1996-97 in which G. Mohandas was the highest bidder might be cancelled as he had committed clear and comprehensive breach of license conditions during the current year, that is, 1995-96. This note was also endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner on 22. 3. 96 and the file then went to the Excise Secretary who referred to the said note and recorded on that very date that G. Mohandas had failed to comply with the orders of the Deputy Commissioner to furnish all pending monthly stock statements, monthly volume of sales even though he was given adequate notice to do so by the Deputy Commissioner and he had violated the terms and conditions of the license issued to him. He also referred in that connection to clause 2 (g) of the terms and conditions of the license which required submission of monthly statements of import, sales and stock position. He also referred to clause 2 (L) of the terms and conditions which provides that the license issued to an auction purchaser shall be liable to be revoked in case of persistent and serious violation of the terms of the contract of the sale or violation of law. He also recorded that it appeared from the concerned note of the Assistant Commissioner, (HQ)/d. C. that prima facie the licence G. Mohandas had used fake import permits and a criminal case had been registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and 3,250 boxes of IMFL items against fake imports were seized by the Excise Authorities in Nagpur and the licencee G. Mohandas was arrested in connection with crime case No. 53/96 on 15. 3. 3. 96 on the basis of non-bailable warrant issued by the C. J. M. Nagpur and there were therefore strong grounds to believe that G. Mohandas was involved in serious violation of law. As such it was recommended by the Excise Secretary also that the license issued to G. Mahandas for the year 1995-96 might be revoked forthwith. As regards the auction conducted on 22. 2. 96 for the year 1996-97 the Excise Secretary specifically recorded that the 'bid of G. Mohandas was accepted by the then Lieutenant Governor, vide minutes at page 53/n'. He then recorded that 'however, in view of the fact that Sri G. Mohandas is involved in the criminal case as mentioned above, we may now review the decision'. The Excise Secretary accordingly proposed cancellation of the result of the auction held on 22. 2. 96. Therefore we see that even the Excise Secretary also in his note dated 22. 3. 96 expressly recorded, far from suppressing or concealing the fact, that the bid of G. Mohandas was accepted by the previous Lieutenant Governor, but in view of the prima facie and circumstances regarding the involvement of G. Mohandas in the criminal case the earlier decision might be reviewed. The express reference to the earlier approval of the bid of G. Mohandas by the earlier Lieutenant Governor and the necessary of reviewing the same in view of the facts and circumstances stated in the note, all found place in paragraph 64 of the note of the Excise Secretary and the earlier paragraph 63 contained the factual background about the involvement of G. Mohandas in crime No. 53/96. He also proposed for blacklisting him. In paragraphs 65 of his note dated 22. 3. 96 the Exercise Secretary suggested that the matter might be referred to the CBI for investigation as the State exchequer had been deprived of its rightful dues and meanwhile pending the result of the enquiry no license to vend beer, wine, foreign liquer including IMFL might be issued and a fresh look at the liquor policy might be taken. The file then went to the Judicial Secretary and on that very day, that is, on 22. 3. 96 the Judicial Secretary in his note referred to the earlier notes including the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor dated 12. 3. 96 regarding the approval of the bid. The file then went to the Judicial Secretary and on that very day, that is, on 22. 3. 96 the Judicial Secretary in his note referred to the earlier notes including the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor dated 12. 3. 96 regarding the approval of the bid. Thus we find that the Judicial Secretary also specifically referred to the earlier decision of the Lieutenant Governor dated 12. 3. 96 by which the Lieutenant Governor had accepted the bid and directed for entering into an agreement with G. Mohandas and for issuing license in his favour for the year 1996-97. We fail to understand how therefore it could be said that the bureaucrats suppressed the earlier decision of the earstwhile Lieutenant Governor. As a matter of fact in every note, as we have seen, attention to the earlier decision of the earstwhile Lieutenant Governor dated 12. 3. 96 was drawn. ( 9 ) THE file then went to the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary in his hand-written note expressly referred to the earlier notes. He recorded that D. C. (A) had recommended cancellation of the license of G. Mohandas for the year 1995-96 forthwith and for black-listing him and on the same ground (D. C. and others) had proposed cancellation of auction for 1996-97 in which G. Mohandas had emerged as the highest bidder. The Chief Secretary then recorded that the 'secretary (Excise) in his note in paras 63 and 64 for the reasons stated therein' had also supported the proposal and recommended revocation of the license of G. Mohandas for 1995-96 and cancellation of the result of auction held on 22. 2. 96 and also for black-listing him from further dealing with the administration. The Chief Secretary also referred to the opinion expressed by the Secretary (Judicial ). Then the Chief Secretary recorded that if the above proposal met the approval of Lieutenant Governor (L. G.) then she might approve cancellation of G. Mohandas license for the current year forthwith, black-list him for further dealings with the administration, cancel the result of auction hold on 22. 2. 96 and inform the court accordingly and await further order of the court. He also placed for consideration whether the matter might be referred to the CBI as recommended by the Excise Secretary. This note was made by the Chief Secretary on 22. 3. 96. 2. 96 and inform the court accordingly and await further order of the court. He also placed for consideration whether the matter might be referred to the CBI as recommended by the Excise Secretary. This note was made by the Chief Secretary on 22. 3. 96. The Lieutenant Governor R. Bajpayee then on 25. 3. 96 endorsed her approval thereto. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the appellants that the new Lieutenant Governor who was the Lieutenant Governor of Pondicherry and was holding additional charge of the Lieutenant Governor of Andaman and Nicobar Islands was functioning from Pondicherry and the relevant file and all connected files and papers with notes of the officers including the Chief Secretary dated 22. 3. 96 were sent from Port Blair to the new Lieutenant at Pondicherry and the new Lieutenant Governor approved the proposal of the Chief Secretary in the file at Pondicherry and thereafter the file came back to Andaman and the file was dealt with at Andaman on 29. 3. 96 as would appear from the note of that date which is at page 532 of the paper book. In that note it was recorded that the file might be returned to D. C. (Andaman) for further necessary action. The learned trial Judge found fault with the notes dated 22. 3. 96 on the assumption that the Chief Secretary and other officers deliberately suppressed and concealed that the earlier Lieutenant Governor had already taken decision to accept the bid of G. Mohandas for the year 1996-97. In our opinion the view taken by the learned trial Judge is not only uncharitable to the Chief Secretary and other officers but is also not sustained by the facts. The note of the Chief Secretary cannot also be stated to be misleading by any means. The Chief Secretary in this case, recommended certain steps for the approval of the Lieutenant Governor on the basis of recommendations made by certain other officers in the continuing note. It cannot escape notice that in making these recommendations the Chief Secretary approved the recommendations which were made by the other officers in their notes in the file. It is also a glaring fact that in his note the Chief Secretary while placing his proposals, did not independently record any reason in support of the proposed steps. It cannot escape notice that in making these recommendations the Chief Secretary approved the recommendations which were made by the other officers in their notes in the file. It is also a glaring fact that in his note the Chief Secretary while placing his proposals, did not independently record any reason in support of the proposed steps. There is no doubt that for the suggested steps there must be reason. It is not a case that in suggesting or proposing the steps noted by him for the approval of the Lieutenant Governor, the Chief Secretary independently or expressly recorded some reason of his own while suppressing some facts. In support of the proposed steps the Chief Secretary did not give a single reason of his own. All that he did was that he first referred to the note of the Deputy Commissioner wherein the Deputy Commissioner, by endorsing the note of Assistant Commissioner (H. Q) recommended certain steps in respect of G. Mohandas. The Chief Secretary referred to the note of the D. C. (A) wherein the D. C. , by endorsement, recommended cancellation of the license of G. Mohandas for 1995-96 forthwith. The said note endorsed by the D. C. contained the reasons in support of the recommendation for cancellation of the license for 1995-96. The Chief Secretary did not give any independent reason of his own. He only referred to the recommendation of the D. C. containing reasons for such recommendation about the cancellation of the license for the year 1995-96. The Chief Secretary thereafter expressly noted that 'on the same ground they have proposed cancellation of auction for 1996-97. . . . . ' Here also, regarding the proposal for cancellation of the auction for 1996-97 the Chief Secretary did not record any independent reason of his own and he rather referred to the ground assigned in the note endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner. In that note, we have seen, the note of the earlier Lieutenant Governor was specifically referred to. Then again the Chief Secretary in his note dated 22. 3. 96 expressly referred to the fact that the Excise Secretary in his note in paras 63 and 64' for the reasons therein' had also supported the proposal and recommended revocation of the license of G. Mohandas for 1995-96 and cancellation of the result of auction held on 22. 2. 96. 3. 96 expressly referred to the fact that the Excise Secretary in his note in paras 63 and 64' for the reasons therein' had also supported the proposal and recommended revocation of the license of G. Mohandas for 1995-96 and cancellation of the result of auction held on 22. 2. 96. Therefore here also the Chief Secretary while referring to the proposal for cancellation of the result of the auction held on 22. 2. 96 did not give any reason whatsoever of his own in support of such proposal but expressly referred to the reasons recorded by the Excise Secretary in paragraphs 63 and 64 of his note. As we have also seen, the Excise Secretary in paragraphs 63 and 64 elaborately recorded the reasons in support of his proposals. In paragraph 64 the Excise Secretary expressly recorded, as we have seen, that the bid of G. Mohandas had been accepted by the then Lieutenant Governor vide minutes at 53/n, but however in view of the fact that G. Mohandas had been involved in the criminal case the said decision might be reviewed and accordingly he proposed cancellation of the result of the auction held on 22. 2. 96. Where then is the question of suppression of fact by the Chief Secretary while proposing cancellation of the result of the auction held on 22. 3. 96 ? The Chief Secretary in his note dated 22. 2. 96 expressly referred to the reasons assigned by the Excise Secretary in his note of the same date for cancellation of the auction for 1996-97. In that note the Excise Secretary expressly recorded the necessity of reviewing the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor on the grounds stated in the note and the Chief Secretary in his note also, instead of giving any reason of his own, expressly referred to that portion of the note of the Excise Secretary and the grounds stated therein regarding the proposed cancellation of the result of the auction for 1996-97 after reviewing the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor. The new Lieutenant Governor while reading the note of the Chief Secretary or for that matter any one reading the said of the Chief Secretary will find that the Chief Secretary on the basis of the notes of the other officers are recommending certain things including cancellation of the result of the auction for 1996-97. The new Lieutenant Governor while reading the note of the Chief Secretary or for that matter any one reading the said of the Chief Secretary will find that the Chief Secretary on the basis of the notes of the other officers are recommending certain things including cancellation of the result of the auction for 1996-97. The new Lieutenant Governor or for that matter any one reading that note of the Chief Secretary will also find on a simple perusal of the note of the Chief Secretary that the Chief Secretary himself is not expressly recording any reason for the proposed steps. It is only natural that the Lieutenant Governor reading the note of the Chief Secretary proposing certain steps including cancellation of the result of the auction will naturally pose a question to himself or herself as to why the cancellation of the result of the auction is being proposed. The Lieutenant Governor or for that matter any one going through the note of the Chief Secretary is expected to search for the reasons in support of the proposed steps. The Chief Secretary does not record any independent reason of his own in his note. For reasons in support of the proposed steps the Chief Secretary in his note expressly refers to the note endorsed by the Deputy Commissioner and also expressly refers to certain specified paragraphs in the note of the Excise Secretary where the Excise Secretary for reasons stated therein supported the proposals including the proposal to cancel the result of auction after reviewing the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor. The Chief Secretary therefore, instead of assigning any independent reason whatsoever by expressly spelling out such reason, only adopts the reasons assigned by the other officers in their concerned notes including the reasons assigned by the Excise Secretary for cancellation of the result of the auction after reviewing the decision of the earlier Lt. Governor. The Lieutenant Governor therefore in order to know the reasons which prompted the Chief Secretary to recommend the proposed steps must refer to the relevant paragraphs of the note of the Excise Secretary to which her attention has been drawn by the Chief Secretary by express reference to those paragraphs for finding out the reasons in support of the proposal. The Lieutenant Governor therefore in order to know the reasons which prompted the Chief Secretary to recommend the proposed steps must refer to the relevant paragraphs of the note of the Excise Secretary to which her attention has been drawn by the Chief Secretary by express reference to those paragraphs for finding out the reasons in support of the proposal. And once the new Lieutenant Governor peruses those paragraphs in the note of the Excise Secretary to which the Chief Secretary his specifically referred for appreciating the reasons in support of the proposed steps including the cancellation of result of auction, the new Lieutenant Governor will at once come to know that earlier the out-going Lieutenant Governor had taken a decision for accepting the bid of G. Mohandas but for reasons stated in the note of the Excise Secretary a review of that decision of the earlier Governor was proposed and the cancellation of the result of the auction for 1996-97 was proposed as a direct sequel to such review of the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor in the matter. The new Lieutenant Governor is presumed to have made the exercise before approving the proposals of the Chief Secretary because the Chief Secretary in his note did not say that there was no reason to make the proposals nor did he independently record any reasons and he rather only attracted the attention of the Lieutenant Governor by expressly referring to certain portions of the note of the Excise Secretary for finding out the reasons in support of the suggested steps. There is therefore absolutely no scope of holding that there was any suppression, far less any deliberate or fraudulent suppression of facts from the new Lieutenant Governor while inviting her to consider the proposals including the proposal to cancel the result of the auction for 1996-97. The observations of the learned trial Judge against the Chief Secretary and other officers condemning them in the manner in which it has been done for wrongly assumed suppression of facts from the new Lieutenant Governor is patently ill-founded and is not borne out by records. The records rather show that everything was placed before the new Lieutenant Governor including the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor and the reasons that necessitated a review of such decision. The records rather show that everything was placed before the new Lieutenant Governor including the decision of the earlier Lieutenant Governor and the reasons that necessitated a review of such decision. The charge of suppression of facts by bureaucrats from the new Lieutenant Governor is rather misconceived and unwarranted. ( 10 ) AS we have already seen a warrant of arrest against G. Mohandas was issued in connection with crime No. 53/96 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagpur and in execution of the said warrant G. Mohandas was arrested on 15. 3. 96 in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair when two officers of the State Excise Department, Nagpur were present there. It is also to be noted here that on 15. 3. 96 in the forenoon the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair wrote a letter to G. Mohandas stating that on perusal of office records it was found that he had not submitted the monthly stock statement of liquor and the monthly volume of sales since September, 1995. It was further stated in that letter that such lapse on the part of G. Mohandas occurred despite repeated reminders from the end of the Deputy Commissioner. It is also mentioned therein that even the dealing assistant had been sent to him several times for personally obtaining the returns but to no effect. It was pointed out that lapse in the matter constituted clear breach of license conditions. It may be mentioned here that the clause 6 (1) of the terms and conditions subject to which bids were invited and subject to which the agreement was made with G. Mohandas for 1995-96 and the clause 2 (g) of the license granted of him for the year 1995-96, in express terms, required the auction purchaser licensee to furnish to the Deputy Commissioner monthly statements of imports, sale and stock position by the 5th of the succeeding calender month. Since G. Mohandas was the licensee for the year 1995-96 it was therefore incumbent upon him in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the license issued for the said year to regularly submit monthly statements of imports, sale and stock position to the office of the Deputy Commissioner by the 5th of the succeeding month. Since G. Mohandas was the licensee for the year 1995-96 it was therefore incumbent upon him in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the license issued for the said year to regularly submit monthly statements of imports, sale and stock position to the office of the Deputy Commissioner by the 5th of the succeeding month. In the letter dated the 15th March, 1996 issued to G. Mohandas the Deputy Commissioner was pointing out that in breach of such license conditions G. Mohandas did not submit the monthly stock statement of liquor and the monthly volume of sales for the past period mentioned therein inspite of repeated requests and accordingly G. Mohandas was once again directed finally to submit the pending monthly stock statements, monthly volume of sales and the advice notes accompanying all consignments brought against import permits, by 5 p. m. 15. 3. 96. He was reminded that failure to do so would entail stringent action as deemed appropriate. The said letter was served at 11 a. m. on 15. 3. 96. It may be mentioned here that the condition 2 (1) of the license granted to the G. Mohandas for the year 1995-96 stipulated that the license would be liable to be revoked in case of persistent or serious violation of the terms of the contract of sale or violation of law. The statements required to be submitted in view of the letter dated 15. 3. 96 were however not submitted within the stipulated time and in view of the FIR lodged at Nagpur by the State Excise Nagpur and on the request of the State Excise Authorities of Nagpur, under the direction of the Deputy Commissioner, Port Blair, the officers of Andaman administration inspected the places of business of G. Mohandas in the night of 15th March, 1996 and made seizure of documents and sealed his shops and godowns. On 16. 3. 96 the Deputy Commissioner, Andaman again issued a notice requiring G. Mohandas to produce the monthly stock statements, the monthly sales position and the advice notes on or before 5 p. m. on 20. 3. 96 and it was also mentioned that till then the shops and godowns would remain sealed. To the said letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16. 3. 96 a reply was sent on behalf of G. Mohandas on 18. 3. 3. 96 and it was also mentioned that till then the shops and godowns would remain sealed. To the said letter of the Deputy Commissioner dated 16. 3. 96 a reply was sent on behalf of G. Mohandas on 18. 3. 96 requesting the Deputy Commissioner that the office copies of the monthly sales and stock statements and permit register which were at that time in the office of the Deputy Commissioner might be returned so as to enable preparation and submission of the required statements. In that letter dated 18. 3. 96 request was also made for physical verification of the stocks in the shops and godown without delay and allow opening of the shops and godown immediately. In reply to the said letter dated 18. 3. 96 issued on behalf of G. Mohandas the Deputy Commissioner with his letter dated 19. 3. 96 furnished xerox copies of monthly sales register, stock register and permits register in 13 items as mentioned in the said letter and G. Mohandas was directed also to submit (further) certain additional documents and records mentioned therein so as to facilitate expeditions physical verification of shops and godowns. Although the said letter was issued by the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 19. 3. 96 along with xerox copies of 13 items of documents, yet the same was received in the office of G. Mohandas not earlier to 11 a. m. on 21. 3. 96. The Deputy Commissioner's subsequent letter dated the 21st March, 1996 addressed to G. Mohandas shows that the said letter dated 19. 3. 96 issued by the Deputy Commissioner's officer was not accepted by Yusuf (who wrote the earlier letter on behalf of G. Mohandas) or any one else in the office of G. Mohandas on the ground that they were not authorised to accept the communication on behalf of the license, and the reply was ultimately accepted at 11 a. m. on 21. 3. 96 after inordinate delay. It thus prima facie appears that although the administration in reply to the letters issued on behalf of the licencee dated 18. 3. 96 promptly supplied copies of documents numbering 13 items along with their letter dated 19. 3. 96 yet the same were not accepted in the office of the licencee till 21. 3. 96 whereas the dead-line fixed by the letter dated 16. 3. 3. 96 promptly supplied copies of documents numbering 13 items along with their letter dated 19. 3. 96 yet the same were not accepted in the office of the licencee till 21. 3. 96 whereas the dead-line fixed by the letter dated 16. 3. 96 issued by the administration for receiving reply from the licensee expired at 5 p. m. on 20. 3. 96. If anybody has to be blamed for not receiving the documents sent by the administration on 19. 3. 96 it is licensee or his agents and employees who refused to accept the same even on tender till 21. 3. 96 and the administration cannot be blamed for this.