AJODHYA PRASAD SHAW Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution which involve common questions of fact and law. Parties are also common. In O. J. C. No. 329 of 1970 the petitioner is one Ajodhya Prasad Shaw who is opposite party No. 5 in O. J. C. No. 357 of 1970. The petitioner in 357 of 1970 on his own application has come to intervene in O. J. C. No. 329 of 1970. The other four opposite parties of the first case are also the first four opposite parties in the second case. In such background we propose to dispose of both the writ applications by one common judgment.

(2.) AJODHYA Prasad Shaw, the petitioner in O. J. C. No. 329 of 1970, filed the writ application on 6-4-70. According to him the Collector of Mayurbhanj issued a sale notice on 3-2-70 for the year 1970-71 in Form G. L. 10. The said notice contained, amongst others, 70 outstill shops to be auctioned, and the date of auction was 20-2-70 at Baripada in the district of Mayurbhanj. Sale was held on the appointed day by the Collector of Mayurbhanj (opposite party No. 3). The petitioner turned out to be the highest bidder for a group of 7 shops auctioned in one lot, for Rs. 34,000/- per month. The petitioner's bid was accepted and his name as the highest bidder was duly entered in the bid register maintained in Form G. L. 12. In token of acceptance of the same the petitioner as also the Collector of Mayurbhanj signed the bid register. Rs. 68,000/- representing two month's fees in advance for the licences as contemplated under Rule 103(2) of the Board's Excise Rules, 1965 were collected from the petitioner and a receipt for the said amount in the prescribed form G. L. 23 was issued to him. The intervenor in this writ application and petitioner in the connected matter who was the unsuccessful bidder carried an appeal against the aforesaid settlement. The Excise Commissioner in appeal Case No. 3 of 1970 by order dated 16-3-70 dismissed the appeal. A further move before the Board of Revenue was unsuccessful.

(3.) I have already indicated that under Chap. VI of the Act a licence for sale of liquor is to be granted by the Collector. The Act imposes an embargo on import, export and transport as also manufacture, possession and sale of the intoxicants as detailed therein and stipulates grant of licences by prescribed authorities for all such purposes. Section 20 deals with licence for sale and as far as material provides as follows :" No intoxicant ........ shall be sold except under the authority and subject to the terms and conditions of a licence granted in that behalf by the Collector. Section 38 provides,