Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1407 (HP)

Manju Thakur v. State Of Hp

2018-07-30

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, SANJAY KAROL

body2018
JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, A.C.J. - Petitioner, By The Medium Of This Petition, Has prayed for the following reliefs. "(i) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentauthorities to grant license to the petitioner with respect to Unit No. 75 Dakolar, Rampur Bushahr in which the petitioner succeeded so that selling of liquor may be started without any further delay. (ii) That the selling of liquor from the vends is to be started from 1st April, 2018 and as such, the respondentauthorities may kindly be directed not to impose any penalty/recover any amount for the period for which sale could not be undertaken by the petitioner and further the loss incurred by the petitioner on day to day basis may kindly be ordered to be recovered from the private respondent. (iii) That issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentauthorities to place on record the allotment letter issued in favour of the private respondent with respect to the liquor vend at Dakolar, Disrict Shimla, HP (iv) That issue a writ of certiorari to quash the allotment letter, if any issued in favour of the private respondent with respect to the liquor vend at Dakolar, Rampur Bushahr district Shimla, HP." 2. Issues Raised In The Present Petition Are Squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 690 of 2018, titled as Sh. Gulshan Chauhan versus State of HP and others, decided on 5.7.2018. 3. Certain Facts Are Not In Dispute. For Unit No. 75, namely, Dakolar, Rampur Bushahr, in terms of Excise Policy commencing from 1.4.2018, by way of public auction, held on 15.3.2018, petitioner was held to be the highest bidder. Pursuant thereto, she was permitted to complete all the formalities. 4. In terms of the Excise Policy, such bid was required to be accepted by the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Government of Himachal Pradesh. However, prior thereto, on 26.3.2018 and 29.3.2018, respondents issued two advertisements, calling upon several parties to participate in the process of allotment/negotiations of unallotted vends. 5. It Is A Matter Of Record That On 30.3.2018, When negotiations took place, both petitioner and the private respondent, namely M/s Raj Kumar and Parkash Viz, Shish Mahal, Rampur Bushahr, were present. 6. Importantly, Till That Time, Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Government of Himachal Pradesh had not accepted the bid of the petitioner, held pursuant to the auction which took place on 15.3.2018. 7. 6. Importantly, Till That Time, Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Government of Himachal Pradesh had not accepted the bid of the petitioner, held pursuant to the auction which took place on 15.3.2018. 7. During The Process Of Negotiations On 30.3.2018, respondents made certain offers asking the department to regroup Unit No. 75, already allotted to the petitioner, alongwith unsold vends being Unit No. 72,namely, Rampur and Unit No. 82, namely Nirth. 8. Considering all the facts and circumstances, more so that no bid was forthcoming qua Units No. 72 and 82, referred to supra , by way of single allotment, in equity, considering larger interest of the revenue, the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Government of Himachal Pradesh regrouped all the vends being Units No. 72, 75 and 82, and by way of negotiations, allotted the same to the private respondent. 9. Crucially, All This Happened In The Presence Of the petitioner, who did not make any offer or protest such process of negotiations, more so, on the principles of violation of natural justice, which in any event, in the given circumstances, are squarely inapplicable. 10. It Is An Admitted Case Of The Petitioner That She was afforded an opportunity to match the offer given by the private respondent, which she failed to do so. 11. At This Juncture, We May Only Observe That The original reserved price for Unit No. 75 (Dakolar) was Rs. 1,01,56,757/, which was the price at which the auction took place on 15.3.2018, whereas reserve price for both the Units being Unit No. 72 (Rampur) and Unit No. 82 (Nirth) was Rs. 5,18,60,594/. Since none came forward to submit their offers qua these two units on all the three occasions, i.e., at the time of original sale of vends and at the time of subsequent process of bidding and negotiations, keeping in view over all revenue, the Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Government of Himachal Pradesh, thought it prudent to converge all the three vends and allot them to the private respondent for a total consideration of Rs. 5,15,00,000/. Thus, saving loss of revenue amounting to Rs. 4,13,43,243/, for had he not done so, no revenue would have been generated for the remaining two units (Units No. 72 and 82). 12. 5,15,00,000/. Thus, saving loss of revenue amounting to Rs. 4,13,43,243/, for had he not done so, no revenue would have been generated for the remaining two units (Units No. 72 and 82). 12. Before Us, It Is Not The Substantiated And Proven case of the petitioner that it is a case of (a) malice of fact or law; (b) an act of colourable exercise of power; and (c) action which can be said to be biased in favour of the private respondent. 13. It Is Also Not A Case Of Cartelisation. 14. In Any Event, We Do Not Find The Impugned Action to be arbitrary, illegal, capricious and whimsical or in violation of Excise Policy, warranting any interference. 15. Having Said So, Present Petition Stands Disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any.