Judgment : 1. Heard all the parties. 2. By proceedings dated 35. 2000, the second respondent granted licence in Form No.VII under the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’) to the fourth respondent, pursuant to an auction for grant of privilege for retail vending of IMFL Shop No.22 of Uthukottai Taluk, said to have held on 25. 2000 for the privilege amount of Rs.21,24,000 for the excise year 2000-2001. 3. Admittedly the licence was granted to the said shop for the excise year 1998-1999 for the privilege amount of Rs. 16,77,000, but the said licence was not renewed during the excise year 1999-2000. Hence it was brought for public auction for the excise year 2000-2001 as per the notification of the first respondent dated 15. 2000o which reads as follows: NOTIFICATION BY THE COLLECTOR OF THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT (VideRule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending Rules 1989) Notice of Re-auction/Tender for grant of Privilege for retail vending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor for the year 2000-2001 for the period from 6. 2000 to 35. 2001. Notice of re-auction/Tender is hereby given under Rule 5(1) of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail vending) Rules, 1989 for grant of Privilege for retail vending of Indian Made Foreign Liquor in Thiruvallur District in the Annexure to this notice for the year 2000 -2001 for the period from 6. 2000 to 35. 2001. The Public re-auction/Tender shall be conducted by the Officers notified on the date and place noticed against each. FORM-I NOTICE OF TENDER/RE-AUCTION SEE TN1989TNLR01 5(1) TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT Shops to be re-auctioned in Tiruvallur District Sl.No.of IMFL Retail vending Shops Total No. of Shops to be reauctioned Description of area determined by the Collector for IMFL Retail/Vending Shop Designation of the Sale Officer Date of Sale Place of Sale Time fixed for commencement of re-auction Upset (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) TIRUVALLUR TALUK ***** UTHUKOTTAI TALUK Village Panchayat: 221 Periyapalayam Panchayat RDO TVR 25. 2000 Taluk from 21,21,405 Office 9.00 Thiruvallur AM TIRUTTAN1 TALUK ****** PALLIPATTU TALUK ****** AMBATHUR TALUK ****** PONNERI TALUK ****** GUMMUDIPOONDI TALUK ****** dated: 15. 2000 sd/-District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 4. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 20.5.2000,- the first Respondent appointed the Sales Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for the respective venue of auction which reads as follows: PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TIRUVALLUR. R.C.No. 14630/2000 VI, dated 20.5.2000. 2000 sd/-District Collector, Tiruvallur District, Tiruvallur. 4. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 20.5.2000,- the first Respondent appointed the Sales Officer-cum-Revenue Divisional Officer for the respective venue of auction which reads as follows: PROCEEDINGS OF THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVALLUR DISTRICT, TIRUVALLUR. R.C.No. 14630/2000 VI, dated 20.5.2000. Sub: PROHIBITION AND EXCISE Tiruvallur District sale of IMFL shops for the year 2000-2001 staff deputed to sale officers - orders issued. Ref: 1. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, Chennai Lr.No.Prohibition and Excise IX (1) 4676/2000 dt. 14. 2000 and 24. 2000. 2. Collector, Tiruvallur Notification dt. 15. 2000 ORDER: In view of the auction sale of unrenewed/unsold IMFL shops for 2000-2001 in Tiruvallur District to be conducted from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales, the following officers are appointed as Sale Officers, venue of auction and date and time4 of auction are furnished as detailed below: Sl.No. Designation of Sale Officer Auction Area Place of Auction Date and Time 1. Revenue, Divisional Officer, Tiruvallur Tiruvallur and Thiruttani Division, Taluk Office Tiruvallur 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales, until further orders 9 a.m. 2. Special Deputy Collectorate (PGRC), Tiruvallur Ponneri Division, Conference Hall Collectorate, Thiruvallur. In this connection the following staff are drafted to assist the Sales Officers as noticed against each. 1. Revenue Divisional Officer, 1. Divisional Excise Tiruvallur. 2. Thiru J.Munusamy, Zonal Deputy Tahsildar Tiruvallur. 3. Thiru Kalyanam, Asst. Gr. Rev.Inspector (Excise), Tiruvallur. 4. ThiruBalakrishnan, Assistant, Taluk Office, Tiruvallur. 5. Thiru K.Perumal Assistant, Taluk Office, Tiruvallur. 6. ThiruSundarababu, Jr. Assistant, Taluk Office, Tiruvallur. 2. Special Deputy Collector (PGRC) Tiruvallur, Officer 1. Divisional Excise Ponneri at Ambattur and his staff. 2. ThiruMohanavelu, Head Assistant ‘B’ Section Collectors Office, Tiruvallur. 3. Thiru R.Sivaramakrishnan, Assistant, Collectors Office, Tiruvallur. 4. Thiru Madhan Kuppuraj, Jr.Assistant, Collectors Office, Thiruvallur. 5. Thiru Arulkumar, Jr.Assistant, Collectors Office Thiruvallur. The staff drafted for auction duty should assemble at 8.00 a.m. at the respective Sale Centre on the sale date mentioned above without fail. They should have close contact with the Sale Officers and render necessary assistance to them. /By Order/ sd/- S.K.Prabhakar Collector. for Collector 5. Admittedly even though in the said proceedings dated 20.5.2000, the first respondent proposed to conduct the auction for sale of unrenewed/unsold IMFL Shops for excise year 2000-01 in Tiruvallur District from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales, the proposal to conduct the auction from 25. 2000 onwards as sales was neither notified in the notification dated 15. for Collector 5. Admittedly even though in the said proceedings dated 20.5.2000, the first respondent proposed to conduct the auction for sale of unrenewed/unsold IMFL Shops for excise year 2000-01 in Tiruvallur District from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales, the proposal to conduct the auction from 25. 2000 onwards as sales was neither notified in the notification dated 15. 2000 nor by any subsequent notification under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. 6. As there was no bid on 25. 2000 for the impugned shop, the third respondent by his proceedings dated 25. 2000 in Na.Ka.No.2801/ 2000/A5 addressed to the second respondent included the impugned shop in the list of no-bid shops in the auction held on 25. 2000, and that reauction was postponed to 25. 2000. On 25. 2000 itself, the third respondent notified that reauction will be held for the impugned shop on 25. 2000 at 9 a.m. As again there was no bid for the impugned shop on 25. 2000, the 3rd respondent by his proceedings dated 25. 2000 made in Na.Ka.No.2801/2000/A-5 included the impugned shop in the list of no-bid shops and that reauction will be conducted on 25. 2000. On 25. 2000 itself, the 3rd respondent again notified that the reauction would be conducted for the impugned shop on 25. 2000 at 9 a.m. 7. On 25. 2000, it appears that one Thiru K.Veluraj submitted his tender for Rs.21,22,405 while the 4th respondent in the respective writ petitions bid for a sum of Rs.21,24,000, and the same being highest bid, was accepted by the third respondent and a certificate of confirmation of sale privilege was given in favour of the fourth respondent by the 3rd respondent by proceed- ings dated 25. 2000 in Form No. V under Rules 11 and 13(1) of the Rules, and in pursuant to which, the second respondent by his proceedings dated 35. 2000 in R.C. 20929/2000 V-4 issued the licence in Form No.VII to the fourth respondent with regard to the shop No.22, Uthukottai Taluk, for the excise year 2000-01, which is impugned in the above writ petitions. 8. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the grant of licence in favour of the 4th respondent by the respondent 1, 2 and 3 is contrary to Rule 9(2) of the Rules. According to him the third respondent did not conduct any auction on 25. 2000. 8. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the grant of licence in favour of the 4th respondent by the respondent 1, 2 and 3 is contrary to Rule 9(2) of the Rules. According to him the third respondent did not conduct any auction on 25. 2000. He further contends that as per the records, the third respondent had conducted a reauction on 25. 2000 for the impugned shop and the same is not valid as the reauction said to have been held on 25. 2000 is not in compliance of Rule 9(2), for want of approval of the Collector, after including the impugned shop in the list of no-bid shops by the third respondent, particularly, when the proposal to conduct the auction from 25. 2000 as daily sales was not either notified in the notification dated 15. 2000 or by any subsequent notification under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. 9. Mr.R.Krishnamoorthy, the learned senior counsel further contends the granting licence to the fourth respondent for the impugned shop on the basis of the application dated 25. 2000, referred to in the impugned proceeding dated 25. 2000 is nothing but granting a licence to the fourth respondent by a private negotiation, which is not only utter disregard to the provisions of the Rules but also causes heavy loss to the public revenue and a total denial of the lawful rights of the petitioner to participate in the auction. 10. Mr.S.Manikumar, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 placing reliance on the averments filed in the counter-affidavit by the first respondent on behalf of the respondents 1, 2 and 3 eventhough, brings to my notice that the notification in Form No.1-A made under Rule 5(1) dated 15. 2000 of the first respondent was published in Tamil and English dailies and therefore by proceedings dated 20.5.2000, the first respondent instructed the third respondent to conduct the auction as daily sales from 25. 2000 onwards and there was a press release in Dhina Malar dated 25. 2000 that the auction would be held on day to day basis, he fairly concedes that the proposal to conduct the auction on daily basis as instructed by the first respondent to the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 20.5.2000 and said to have been issued in Dhina Malar dated 25. 2000 that the auction would be held on day to day basis, he fairly concedes that the proposal to conduct the auction on daily basis as instructed by the first respondent to the 3rd respondent in his proceedings dated 20.5.2000 and said to have been issued in Dhina Malar dated 25. 2000 was neither notified in the notification dated 15. 2000 nor in any subsequent notification under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader contends that there was no bid on 25. 2000, 25. 2000, and consequently, the impugned shop was included in the list of no-bid shops and finally auction was postponed to 25. 2000 on which date one Thiru K.Veluraj submitted the tender for Rs.21,22,405 and the fourth respondent submitted bid for Rs.21,24,000, which being the higher amount, was accepted by issue of a Certificate of Confirmation of Sale of Privilege, dated 25. 2000 in Form No.V under Rule 11 and 13(1), in pursuant to which, the second respondent by way of impugned proceedings dated 35. 2000 granted licence in Form No.VII and therefore, there is no violation to any of the rules, much less, Rules 5(1) or 9(2) of the Rules nor a loss of public revenue. 11. Mr.K.Chandru, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent seriously contends that the attempt of the petitioners is nothing but an after thought. He further contends that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the above writ petitions as they have not participated in the auction dated 25. 2000, 25. 2000 hand 25. 2000. Mr.K.Chandru, also contends that the affidavits proposed to be filed by the petitioners in Form II are false and fabricated for the purpose of filing the above writ petitions, and in any event, Mr.K.Chandru contends that the licensee with respect to their shop No.23 of Uthukottai Taluk, which is located just 10 shops away from the impugned shop, proposed to create a stalemate in auctioning the impugned shop No.22, of Uthukottai Taluk so that he can monopoly the business and share the profits with the licensee of Shop No.23, at the loss of the public revenue. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides in this regard, I am obliged to refer to Rule 5 and 9 of the Rules, which read as follows: Rule 5. 12. I have carefully considered the submissions of both sides in this regard, I am obliged to refer to Rule 5 and 9 of the Rules, which read as follows: Rule 5. Notice of auction: (1) Where it is proposed to grant the privilege of retail vending of liquor by auction, a notice of auction which shall be in Form -I shall be notified by the Collector atleast seven days in advance-of the date of auction and shall be displayed on the notice boards of the Taluk Office, Revenue Divisional Office concerned and in the Collectors Office. (2) The notice of the auction which shall be in Form I-A shall be published in one Tamil daily and one English daily in that District by the Collector atleast seven days in advance of the date of auction. The period of seven days shall be reckoned from the first of the dates of publication in the dailies, where the notice of auction in Form I-A is published in the dailies on different dates. Rule 9. Bidding: 1. (a) The auction shall commence at the time, date and place specified in the notice of auction and no person shall be allowed to enter the place of auction after the commencement of the auction. Provided, that the Sale Officer, may for valid reasons, permit any person to enter the place of auction at any time before the completion of bidding. .(b) No bid or tender below the upset price shall be considered. Bids shall be in the multiples of Rs.1,000 (Rupees one thousand only) for the same shop in each bid in an auction and the difference between one bid and another succeeding bid for the same shops shall not exceed Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand only) in each bid in an auction. .(c) Immediately after the close of the bid, the Sale Officer shall record the maximum bid amount and thereafter the tenders, if any, shall be taken from the sealed box and opened by the Sale Officer. If the tender is found to be in order, it shall be taken to the sale records for the shop and the amount offered in the tender considered. If the tender is found to be in order, it shall be taken to the sale records for the shop and the amount offered in the tender considered. .(d) If there are no tenders, the Sale Officer shall follow the procedure specified in Clause (f) .(e) If the amount quoted in the highest tender is higher than the maximum bid amount recorded, the Sale Officer shall continue the auction allowing the participation of only the highest bidder and the tenders who have quoted above the highest bid. .(f) The Sale Officer shall then determine and declare the auction procedure immediately thereafter. .(g) In case of a tie, the auction procedure shall be determined by lot drawn by the Sale Officer. .(2) If the auction proceedings of any shop remains incomplete or unsold at the close of the days sale, the Sale Officer shall announce subject to the approval of the Collector, the date, time and place at which to shop shall again be put up to auction by him. The conditions of sale shall remain unaltered. When the list of no-bid shops for reauction has been drawn up, a copy of such list shall be sent to the intending bidder who gives his name and address to the Sale Officer and the list shall also be passed on notice boards of the Taluk Office, Revenue Divisional Office concerned and in the Collectors Office. 13. A reading of Rules 5 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Liquor (Retail Vending) Rules makes it clear that, .(i) the collector shall issue a notice of auction in Form No.1 mentioning the date of auction and such notice shall be displayed in the respective Taluk office, Revenue Division and Collectors Office; .(ii) The notice of auction in Form No.l (A) will be published in one Tamil daily and one English daily in the district; (iii) The auction shall be held at the time, date and place specified in the notice of auction; (iv) If the auction of any shop remains incomplete or unsold at the close of the days sale, the Sale Officer, shall announce the date, time and place at which the shop shall again be put to auction by him and such date, time and place shall be announced by the Sale Officer only subject to the approval of the Collector. 14. 14. Any confirmation of the sale in the auction or reauction of the IMFL shops under the Rules, therefore, shall comply with the above four ingredients in order to satisfy Rules 5 and 9 of the Rules because the auction shall be held only at the time, date and place specified in the notice of auction as clearly contemplated under Rule 9(i)(a). 15. In the instant case, assuming the proposal of conducting the auction for the impugned shop from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales should be considered as the only viable procedure in the case of reauction of the no bid shops taking into account the ground reality that it may not be possible to issue notification as per Rules 5(1) and 5(2) of the Rules in Form No.l and Form No.1(A) after every incomplete or unsold auction of the shops at the close of the days sale as the sale officer has got the right to announce the date, time and place at which the shop shall again be put up to auction, under Rule 9(2), such announcement shall be deemed to be an approval of the collector contemplated under Rule 9(2) of the Rules only if the proposal to conduct the auction on 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales is notified in the notification dated 15. 2000 or in any other subsequent notification of auction notifying such proposal. 16. In my considered opinion, neither the mere proceedings dated 20.5.2000 appointing the third respondent as Sales Officer cum Divisional Officer for the respective venue, date and time of auction and instructing them to conduct the auction from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales nor the press release in ‘Dhina Malar’ dated 25. 2000 assuming to be made with the approval of the first respondent are in compliance of Rules 5(1) and 9(1)(a) nor could be taken as a sufficient compliance of Rule 9(2) of the Rules deeming the proceedings dated 20.5.2000 has an approval of the Collector for announcing the date, time and place for the auction of any shops which remain incomplete or unsold at the close of the days sale notified under the notification dated 15. 2000. 17. 2000. 17. It is well settled that in law that if the manner of doing a particular act is prescribed under any statute, such act must be done in that manner prescribed under the statute but not otherwise, vide: Taylor v. Taylor vide: Taylor v. Taylor vide: Taylor v. Taylor , 1875 CD. 426: 45 LJ.Ch. 373 Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. Kind Emperor , 1936 I.A. 163, Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and Baku Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala Baku Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala Baku Verghese v. Bar Council of Kerala , (1999)2 C.T.C. 722. 18. As the proposal to conduct the auction from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sale as per the proceedings dated 20.5.2000 and the press release in the Dhina Malar dated 25. 2000 neither finds space in the notification dated 15. 2000 nor notified by any subsequent notifications under Rule 5 (1) of the rules by the first respondent, as fairly conceded by the learned additional Government Pleader which in my considered opinion on neither shall be a compliance nor deemed to be in compliance of Rules 9(1)(a) and 9(2). 19. But, at the same time, I am unable to ignore the efforts taken by the third respondent in conducting the auction from 25. 2000 onwards as daily sales in accordance with the proceedings of the first respondent dated 20.5.2000 and the press released in the Dina Malar dated 25. 2000 and therefore, I do not find any justification to disregard the procedure adopted by the third respondent in conducting the reauctions on 25. 2000, 25. 2000 and 25. 2000 with regard to the impugned shop, in continuation of which the impugned licence was granted by the second respondent, and the same cannot be ignored merely for want of notifying the proposal of daily sales referred to above. 20. Balancing the contentions and the rival contentions of both the parties, and in the interest of the public revenue, I therefore, hereby direct the respondents 1 to 3 to continue the public auction from the bid offered by the 4th respondent namely at Rs.21,24,000, after notifying a specific date, time and place with regard to the impugned shop within fifteen days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, and both the petitioners, fourth respondent or any other person who desires to bid are at liberty to participate in the auction. 21. Inthe event, if the bid is confirmed to any third party other than the fourth respondent, the privilege amount paid by the fourth respondent shall be refunded by the first respondent immediately at the time of confirmation of the highest bid in the auction to be held, after deducting the proportional privilege amount for the period from 35. 2000 till the date of confirmation, directed to be made pursuant to this order. 22. It is also made clear that if there is no bid on such date of auction as directed by this Court, there shall not be any interference with the grant of licence in favour of the fourth respondent, granted under the impugned proceedings dated 35. 2000. 23. The writ petition is ordered accordingly, “No costs. Consequently W.M.P.Nos. 13930, 13931, 18252, 18253 of 2000 are closed.