Judgment : The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to issue a writ of certiorari to call for the records in connection with the notification dated 27. 1992 in Na.Ka.No.E3/632/91 issued by the second respondent and to quash the same. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the respondents as well. 3. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would contend that being the highest bidder of the sale of arrack shop bearing No.6, Anandur village on a monthly kist of Rs.19,120 and on deposit of Rs.1,000 as earnest money deposit, the sale was decided in his favour, but he did not remit the half months rental before the close of the auction date and pursued his bid. Hence, the earnest money deposit of Rs.1,000 was forfeited to the Government and the sale was recommended for cancellation as per the orders of the Sub Collector, Devakottai and the first respondent as per his order, ordered collection of the notional loss of Rs.1,09,440 on resale conducted, from the petitioner as if it were an arrears of land revenue even though there was no concluded contract between him and the Tamil Nadu Government under Sec.52 of the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) treating it as if the arrear of land revenue. 4. The further case of the petitioner is that the contract is concluded only after the agreement is signed between them. Only after the signing of the contract, it enables the Collector for collecting the alleged notional loss as if it were an arrear of land revenue under Sec.52 of the Act; that in the instant case, the petitioner was not even accepted as a provisional bidder and hence the first respondents order to collect the alleged notional loss as if it is an arrear of land revenue is in contravention of Sec.52 of the Act and it is a patent error of law that becomes liable to be struck down as ultra vires of the Act. 5. 5. The further case of the petitioner is that the second respondent is not legally competent to order distraint of the petitioners movable by No.1 demand; that the second respondent has exceeded in his jurisdiction to issue the No.I, demand, which is again an error apparent in law; that he preferred an appeal to the first respondent against the No.1 demand and the same was dismissed on ground of delay in filing the appeal; that on a revision petition filed before the Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition, the delay had been condoned and the appeal was remanded to the first respondent for fresh disposal. The petitioner would contend that the said appeal is still pending before the first respondent and that the first respondent has issued a notice of hearing dated 8. 1989 and in consequence of which, the petitioner appeared on 12. 1989 and gave a statement, but no orders have been passed so far. 6. It is the further contention of the petitioner that in the mean time, while the appeal is pending before the first respondent, he is visited with the impugned order dated 27. 1992 notifying the sale of his land on 28. 1992; that such a sale could be ordered only by the revenue authority, viz., the Tahsildar in observance of demands (ii) and (iii) under the Act; that the second respondent had exceeded his jurisdiction in the case of the petitioner further having initiated proceedings without a notice of demand having been issued to the petitioner which is in violation of the principles of natural justice. With this and such other grounds, the petitioner would pray for the relief as sought for in the writ petition. 7. In the counter filed on behalf of the respondents, it would be contended that the sale of the Arrack Shop No.6 Anandur village for the year 1982-83 was conducted by the then Sub Collector, Devakottai on 6. 1982 and the petitioner was the highest bidder for a monthly rent of Rs.19,120. But, since he failed to remit the half monthly rent after the sale was over as required under the Rule, the sale concluded in his favour was cancelled and a resale was ordered and conducted on 26. 1992 and it had gone only on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000; that due to the default of the petitioner, the Government sustained a loss of revenue from 17. 1992 and it had gone only on a monthly rent of Rs.10,000; that due to the default of the petitioner, the Government sustained a loss of revenue from 17. 1982 to 17. 1983 at the rate of Rs.9,120 totally amounting to Rs.1,09,440. .8. Thefurther case of the respondents is that as per Rule 15 of the Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shop (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1981, every auction purchaser shall, immediately after the announcement or before the close of the days’ sale, deposit half a months rental, lest, the earnest money deposit made by him under Rule 8 will be forfeited to the Government; that under Rule 16, auction purchaser has to pay within seven days of auction sale an advance of three months rental (including half month rental paid under Rule 15) lest, the shop may be resold under the orders of the District Collector; that such a resale is at the risk defaulting bidder and in the event the deposit made by the defaulting bidder shall be deducted from the loss and the balance of loss will be recovered as arrears of land revenue in addition to the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit made by the defaulter. Hence, under the Rules, the petitioner is liable to pay the loss sustained by the Government due to his default. 9. The further averments of the counter is that the notional loss of Rs.1,09,440 is therefore treated as an arrear of land revenue with reference to Rule 21; that the discussion about the contract much less a concluded contract under Sec.52 of the Act has no relevance and that the contentions raised therein are not relevant under the Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shop (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1981; that the second respondent is in the cadre of the Tahsildar and he is fully competent to issue No.I notice under the Revenue Recovery Act; that only giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the Collector ordered for the recovery of the said sum from the petitioner; that further, the petitioner himself by letter dated 1. 1984 informed this respondent that he is not in a position to remit this amount due by him and that he was giving his full consent for bringing the wet lands belonging to him for auction without distraining his movable properties. 10. 1984 informed this respondent that he is not in a position to remit this amount due by him and that he was giving his full consent for bringing the wet lands belonging to him for auction without distraining his movable properties. 10. It would further be contended that the appeal referred to preferred before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Madras dated 112. 1987, no stay was granted and hence, the second respondent pursued action to collect the notional loss of Rs.1,09,440 from the petitioner under the Revenue Recovery Act and moving this Court pointing out the order of stay from restraining the respondent from collecting the arrears and making a representation before the appellate authority and the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise as well, the petitioner has delayed the process of recovery; that only in consequence of the stay granted by this Court on 18. 1992, the proposed sale was stopped in obedience of the order of stay. With such averments, the respondents would pray for dismissing the writ petition with costs. 11. During arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that it was not a concluded contract; that the petitioner was just a bidder and as per Rules, it could not be considered as a licence; that the earnest money deposit to the tune of Rs.1,000 had been forfeited; that one of the conditions that he should deposit half months rent before the close of the auction date without being complied, the sale of auction is incomplete; that the liability of the petitioner starts only after the confirmation of the sale; that only after the confirmation of the sale order, the petitioner would acquire the status of a licensee and in the case in hand, since the petitioner has not become the licensee in the strict sense of the term, he cannot be mulcted with the amounts as it has been done in the case of the petitioner by the respondents. With these arguments, the learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition quashing the notification issued by the second respondent in Roc.No.E3/632/91, dated 27. 1992. .12. With these arguments, the learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition quashing the notification issued by the second respondent in Roc.No.E3/632/91, dated 27. 1992. .12. On the part of the learned Government Advocate on the writ side, it would be contended that it is absolutely not necessary for the petitioner to become a full-fledged licensee in the strict sense of the term as argued on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner, nor could it be taken as a contract entered into in between the petitioner and the respondents, so as to say that there is no concluded contract. Hence, the petitioner is liable for the recovery of the said amount of Rs.1,09,440 as the same being the loss that has occurred to the Government; that it is the conditions that are imposed in the notice of sale of privilege to sell by retail (Arrack and Toddy) in Ramanathapuram District wherein the conditions are stipulated, abiding by which alone the petitioner should have participated in the auction and the noncompliance of any of the conditions would empower the respondents to not only declare the earnest money deposit to be forfeited to the State Government, but also to collect the loss that had occasioned to the Government on account of the reauction in which event, the difference of amount between the previous sale and the resale has to be paid since being a loss to the Government by the petitioners. On such grounds, the learned Government Advocate would contend that the petitioner has violated the conditions to sell retail shops through auction and hence now, he has no defence at all either under pretext that he has not become the full-fledged licensee, or there is no concluded contract and hence would pray to dismiss the writ petition with costs. 13. On a true assessment of the facts and circumstances as pleaded in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit and in the light of the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both parties would reveal that it is a sale of privilege to sell by retail (arrack and toddy) in Ramanathapuram District that had been conducted covering the period from 7. 1981 to 30.6.1982; that according to Rule 18 of the conditions of sale as laid down in Tamil Nadu Toddy and Arrack Shop (Disposal in Auction) Rules, 1981, the conditions which are relevant to the context of the case are stipulated and the same are extracted hereunder: “On the failure of any person to make a deposit or apply for a licence or to comply with any requisition or to execute any bond, deed or agreement, the shop may be resold under the orders of the Collector or on a report from the Assistant Commissioner or the Sale Officer the Collector may otherwise dispose of the shop. Resales under this conditions shall be at the risk of the defaulting shall be at the risk of the defaulting bidder, who shall forfeit all gain that may accrue by the resale and in the event of a loss by resale, the defaulting bidder shall be required to make good the deficiency between the total amount payable for the whole period under the terms of the original sale and the total amount payable by the successful bidder at the resale. In the latter case, the deposits already made by the defaulting bidder, excluding the amount of earnest money deposit if any, forfeited to the State Government, shall be forfeited and deducted from the loss arising from the resale, and the balance of the loss, if any, shall be recoverable in the same manner as if it were an arrear of the land revenue should, however, the deposit as is necessary to cover loss by resale will be forfeited and the balance refunded to the defaulter. The defaulting bidder shall be similarly liable if the shop is disposed of otherwise than by resale and such disposal results in loss to Government as compared with the original sale. For the purpose of this condition “Disposal otherwise than by resale.” includes closure. The defaulting bidder shall be similarly liable if the shop is disposed of otherwise than by resale and such disposal results in loss to Government as compared with the original sale. For the purpose of this condition “Disposal otherwise than by resale.” includes closure. Further, Rule 20(1), contemplates as follows: “Deposits in cash shall be adjusted towards the instalments of rental due in the last months of the period of the lease, Deposits of securities or savings bank pass books or Bank Deposit Certificates if any shall be returned on payment in cash of the full amount of the rent due and of any penalties or other sums recoverable under the terms of the licence or of the Rules unless the depositors wish that the Government should take them over, in which case they shall be taken over at the price of the day, and the balance, if any, due to the Government must be paid in cash. In cases of default under Rule 21 of the conditions of auction sale or when the Assistant Commissioner decides to cancel the licence under the terms of the Rules, all securities deposited are liable to be sold for any amount due to the State Government under the terms of the lease, the remainder, if any, due after such sale being recovered as arrears under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864)” 14. A cursory glance into Rule 18 of the conditions would in no uncertain terms promulgate that on the failure of any person to make deposit or apply for a licence or to comply with any requisition or to execute any bound, deed or agreement, the shop may be resold at the risk of the defaulting bidder who shall forfeit all gain that may accrue by the resale and in the event of loss by resale, the defaulting bidder shall be required to make good the deficiency between the total amount payable for the whole period under the terms of the original sale and the total amount payable by the successful bidder at the resale and under the terms of the original sale, the earnest money deposit made shall also be forfeited to the State Government and such balance shall be recoverable in th same manner as if it were an arrear of land revenue. So far as the other Rule 20(1) is concerned, it would contemplate that in cases of default of the conditions of auction sale for any amount due to the State Government under the terms of the lease due after such sale shall be recovered as arrears under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 (Tamil Nadu Act II of 1864). 15. It is only on such clear terms and conditions, the auction was held, abiding which the petitioner had ventured to bid in the auction and himself being the successful bidder following the auction sale conditions stipulated therein he should have remitted the half months’ rental before the close of the auction date and pursued his bid since having become the highest bidder in the auction, the petitioner did not come forward to fulfil the remaining conditions purely adhering to the terms and conditions precedent, the impugned order had been passed by the second respondent based on the recommendations of the third respondent on facts and circumstances of the case rightly estimating the loss of Rs.1,09,440 besides ordering the forfeiture of the earnest money deposit of Rs.1,000 and since the petitioner only accepting to the terms and conditions of the auction sale, participated in the auction and become the successful bidder, the relevant conditions of sale having been blatantly violated by the petitioner, the second respondent is quite justified in passing the impugned order and absolutely there is no patent errors of law or perversity in approach so far as passing of the impugned order by the second respondent is concerned. Nor is there any legal infirmity or inconsistency or impedient either seen or broughtforth so as to call for interference by this Court. Therefore the impugned order passed by the second respondent herein is hereby declared valid and legal. In result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P. is also dismissed.