Bharucha, J. - (1.) These are appeals against the judgment and order dated 8th May, 1996, of a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, passed upon a writ petition filed by the first respondent, M/s. Yoginder Sharma Onkar Rai and Co. The subject-matter of the writ petition was the auction of liquor vends of Group Nos. 108 to 111 in Khanna Circle, District Ludhiana, State of Punjab for the year 1996-97. The first appeal is by the State of Punjab. The other appeals are by the successful bidders.
(2.) The auction took place on 11th March, 1996. On 18th March, 1996, the first respondent filed an earlier writ petition (Writ Petition No. 4047/1996) before the High Court Challenging the auction. Thereon the Division Bench ordered: "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record we are of the opinion that the points raised by the petitioners do require a consideration by the competent authority authorised a (sic) reject the higher bid offered and the auction held. The disputed questions of facts raised in this litigation can also better be appreciated by such authority. ********** In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of with the following directions : (i) That Shri Y. S. Ratra, Financial Commissioner, Taxation shall treat this writ petition as representation/revision in terms of Rule 36 (18) of the Rules filed before him to determine the legality of the bids in auction held in favour of the private respondents. (ii) The parties shall be given an opportunity of being heard before passing the appropriate orders." Consequential directions were also given.
(3.) The Financial Commissioner heard the parties as directed by the High Court and rejected the representation/revision filed by the first respondent. He noted various circumstances on the basis of which he came to the conclusion that the first respondent had not given a bid of Rs. 4.21 crores for Group No. 108 or a bid of Rs. 3.50 crores for Group No. 111. The Financial Commissioner found that the possession of a receipt for entry into the auction pandal did not mean that the first respondent had made a bid unless it was shown from the bid sheet that its name was recorded thereon. Being a sitting licensee for the last 4 or 5 years did not give the licensee any right to get the vend again unless he bids for it in open auction. Not much reliance could be placed on newspaper reports, as the Supreme Court had held that newspaper reports had no evidentiary value but were only hearsay evidence. That a bank counter had been opened in the pandal did not bar the successful bidders from depositing the requisite amount of 15% of the bid money in the Government Treasury at Khanna in the stated time. In the pandal there were 1200-1300 persons. They were not all bidders. Being the first auction of liquor vends in the State for the given year, licensees from other districts had come to see the trends and make a market survey. That only 2 or 3 bidders had given bids for a particular vend was, therefore, not noteworthy. Though the partners of S. P. Kalia and Co. and Puneet Kalia and Co. were relations there was no reason why they should not bid against each other. It was next to impossible that 34 drafts could have been prepared on the day of the auction in banks at Khanna and Mandi Gobind Garh which would reach the pandal by 11 a.m. considering the fact that the-banks opened at 10 a.m. at Khanna and Mandi Gobind Garh, which was approximately 40-50 kms. from the site of the auction at Ludhiana. It was more likely that all this would take 2 hours. This indicated that the first respondent did not have adequate funds to deposit 15% of the bid money at the fall of the hammer and, therefore did not bid at all. Note was taken of the pattern of bidding. For Group No. 108 the initial bid was for Rs. 3.55 crores, the next was Rs. 3.65 crores, then Rs. 3.68 crores, then Rs. 3.70 (crores) and the successful bid was of Rs. 3.71 crores. Thus the trend of the rise was Rs. 10 lacs in the first instance, then Rs. 3 lacs, then Rs. 2 lacs and, lastly, Rs. 1 lac. The case of the first respondent was that it bid Rs. 4.21 crores, that is to say, there was a rise of Rs. 50 lacs over the last bid. Substantially similar was the position in regard to Group No. 111 where there was allegedly a rise of Rs. 45 lacs. It was hard to believe that the Collector, who was present at the auction, would not have intervened in these circumstances. No evidence was forthcoming that anything spectacular had happened in the pandal. The first respondent had not approached any of the senior officers who were in the city in connection with the auction. The mere mention during the argument that it had approached the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and told him its case and that he said he would look into the matter was an after-thought. If the difference between the successful bids and the allegedly higher bids was really of Rs. 50 lacs and Rs. 45 lacs respectively, the first respondent should have put it in writing and the Excise and Taxation Commissioner would have taken cognizance. The telegram sent by the first respondent was 4 days after the auction. There were telegrams under different names but they were all similarly worded and no mention was made therein of the amounts of the allegedly higher bids, but merely that a lower bid had been accepted despite a higher bid. Due credence had to be given to the reports of the two independent observers nominated by the Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of the District who were present at the pandal. No mention had been made of the alleged higher bids in the observers reports, which stated that the auctions were fair and there was no favouritism. The decision of the State Government not to allow S. K. Ralhan, Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, Patiala Division, to conduct auctions in other districts of Patiala Division was based on administrative grounds and the matter was under consideration. There was no evidence that the auction had been stage-managed. The claim of the first respondent was, therefore, without any basis, an afterthought and not based on any concrete evidence.;