B. P. Jeevan Reddy, J. - (1.) The several orders made by a learned single Judge of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in a writ petition, impugned herein, made in total disregard of the basic norms governing the exercise of writ jurisdiction by the High Court, disclose a disturbing state of affairs affecting public finances. The facts stated hereinafter speak for themselves.
(2.) For the year 1995-96 (commencing on April 1, 1993 and ending with June 30, 1996), public auctions were held for grant of licences for country liquor as well as Indian made foreign liquor (IMFL) in Madhya Pradesh, sometime in the months of February-March, 1995. The respondent-firm was the highest bidder in respect of Gwalior Township Group No. 2 comprising twelve shops of country liquor and seven shops of IMFL. in a sum of Rs. 8.52 crores. Its bid was accepted. The appellants say that according to the rules and the conditions specified in the auction notification, any person desiring to participate in the auction shall have to pay an amount equivalent to twenty per cent of the amount of the licence fee of the proceeding excise year. If his bid is accepted, he has to deposit an amount equivalent to 1/6th of the total bid in cash or by bank draft soon after the auction, which amount shall be adjusted against the licence fee payable for the last two months of the excise year. In addition thereto, the successful bidder, the appellants say, has to furnish a bank guarantee or a bank draft or a bankers cheque/order for an amount equal to 1/12th of the total bid amount within seven days of the auction, to be adjusted during the course of the excise year. The appellants say that the respondent-firm deposited 1/6th of the bid amount, i.e., Rs. 1,42,00,000/- and took out the licences but failed to furnish the bank guarantee to the extent of 1/12th of the bid amount as required by rules/conditions of auction. The appellants say further that the respondent has also subsequently failed to pay the monthly rental for the month of May, 1995. For the aforesaid defaults, they say, notices were given proposing cancellation of licence granted to it. Under this show cause notice, the respondent was called upon to explain by May 19, 1995 why its licences should not be cancelled and the group be re-auctioned. (These facts are taken from the counter-affidavit filed by the District Excise Officer in the High Court.)
(3.) On May 17, 1995, the respondent filed Writ Petition No. 711 of 1995 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) complaining that though he has complied with all the conditions of auction and rules, the authorities are not issuing the permits and other forms on account of which their shops are facing closure. The respondent also complained that while not issuing the permits and other forms, the authorities are proposing to cancel the writ petitioners licences, which was characterised as unjust and illegal. It prayed for the issuance of a writ "directing the respondents (State of Madhya Pradesh and the Excise authorities) not to withhold the permits and issue forms of the petitioner and to ensure that the supply of liquor is made to the petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the licence." Interim relief was also asked for in the same terms.;