- (1.) I. P. Vasishth, J. Excise auctions for Lakhimpur Kheri and Hardoi for the year 1996-97 are the subject-matter of dispute in these two writ petitions and since common questions of fact and law are involved therein, therefore, the parties argued them together and we propose to dispose them off by the instant common order.
(2.) THE propagation was that writ petition No. 709 (MB) of 1996 (Rajesh Singh v. State of U. P.) and writ petition No. 728 (MB) of 1996 (Chandrajeet Singh v. State of U. P.) were instituted in this Court seeking relief for participation in the excise auctions scheduled to be held at Hardoi and Lakhimpur Kheri on 11- 3-1996. THEy were disposed off by a division bench of this Court on 8-3-1996 with a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioners' participation on issuance of the necessary hall-tickets in the event of their fulfilling requirements under the rules and deposit of the appropriate fee. According to the writ petitioners and their partners obtained the hall-tickets and approached the respective Pandals at Lakhimpur Kheri and Hardoi on the appointed day, but to their amazement, were prevented from entering the auction Pandal by the local authorities; so much so that they were not even permitted to meet the Collector to lodge a formal protest. Feeling aggrieved they immediately sent telegrams to the Excise Secretary and the Excise Commissioner apprising them of the high-handedness to which they were subjected. It was followed by their immediate visit to the office of the Excise Commissioner with a written application and an offer to submit bank-drafts worth Rs. 1,25,000,00 for Lakhimpur Kheri and Rs. 1,15,15,000/- for Hardoi. As the Excise Commissioner was not available in the office, so the applications were handed over to the Additional Excise Commissioner who, however, refused to accept the bank-drafts. The petitioners apprised the Additional Commissioner that because they were prevented from participating in the auctions, therefore, there was imperative need for re- holding the public auctions. They further offered the forfeiture of their above said draft money in case the proposed highest bid was found less than 20% higher than the earlier settled amount in the impugned auctions. It was further averred that as the Additional Excise Commissioner refused to accept the bank-drafts, therefore, writ petition No. 815 (MB) of 1996 was field in the Court to assail the auctions. On 18-3-1996 the said writ petition was disposed off finally by a division bench of this Court with a direction to the petitioners to file a detailed representation of their grievance before the Excise Commissioner who was supposed to dispose off the matter before 28-3-1996. Accordingly the petitioners did file the representations before the Excise Commissioner, who in his turn referred them to the Additional Excise Commissioner as the latter exercised his delegated powers.
(3.) THE grievance was that despite being apprised of the local authorities' high-handedness in the entire episode, the Additional Excise Commissioner joined the respondents in the proceedings and refused to intervene; to finally reject the petitioners' representations on 27-3-1996. Hence the two petitions for the relief of quashing the orders of the Excise Commissioner dated 27-3-1996 contained in Annexure 5 (Lakhimpur Kheri) attached with petition No. 3269 (MB) of 1996 of Rajesh Singh and Annexure 7 (Hardoi) attached with petition No. 735 (MB) of 1996 of Chandrajeet Singh. Both the petitions were resisted by the respondents. The burden of defence was that even though the petitioners had the hall-tickets, yet they never attended the auctions which were validly conducted at both the places i. e. Lakhimpur Kheri and Hardoi on 11-3-1996 according to the pre-fixed schedule. It was contended that since the petitioners did not approach the "pandal" to attend the proceedings, therefore, there was no occasion for anybody to prevent their participation; they were rather accused of taking contradictory stands before the Additional Excise Commissioner casting serious aspersions and doubts on their bona fides with regard to the post-auction offer of depositing the security of Rs. 1,25,000,00 in one case and Rs. 1,15,15,000/- in the other. It was explained that in both these cases the finally accepted bids were much higher than the State target of 15% increase over the last year's revenue; actually it was even higher than the 20% enhancement fixed for the concerned districts; as in the case of Lakhimpur Kheri it fetched 22. 6% over and above the last year's figure, whereas in the case of Hardoi it was 21. 5%.;