- (1.) THIS Petition came up for hearing before my learned brethren Narula and Suri jj. and the learned Judges referred it for decision to a larger Bench by an order dated November. 19, 1970, principally because Suri J. , doubted the correctness of some earlier Division Bench judgments of this Court. In pursuance of that reference order this petition has been placed for hearing before this Full Bench.
(2.) THE petitioner-firm gave the highest bid for the country liquor vend at Railway road, Kapurthala, for the years 1969-70 when the auctions were held in the month of March, 1969. The quota fixed for the vend was 11640 proof litres. A pamphlet containing the terms of auction was prepared and circulated amongst the prospective bidders. The relevant conditions of auction are contained in annexure 'a' to the writ petition. In accordance with those conditions, the licence fee for the vend bid by the petitioner-firm amounting to Rupees 2,75,000. 00 was to be deposited in the Treasury in twelve equal instalments, each instalment being paid on or before the 25th of each month. Before starting the vend the petitioner-firm had to deposit 1/12th of the amount that is, Rupees 22,916. 00 by way of security. The petitioner-firm failed to deposit the licence fee for the month of august 1969, as a result of which its licence was cancelled on September 15, 1969. That cancellation was, however, revoked because the instalment of the licence fee for the month of August, 1969, had been paid by the petitioner firm on September 13, 1969. Again on November 4, 1969, the licence of the petitioner-firm was cancelled for failure to deposit the licence fee for the month of september, 1969. In this order of cancellation it was specifically mentioned that the licence should be reauctioned by public auction under the provisions of Rule 36 (24) of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 (hereinafter called the Rules), if the defaulter, that is, the petitioner-firm, did not pay the dues before the date of reauction if the dues were paid, the reauction was to be stopped and the case for imposition of additional fee was to be referred to the Deputy Excise and Taxation commissioner. The Excise and Taxation Officer, respondent 4, who was authorised by respondent 3 to take action for reauction did not reauction the vend and the order of cancellation was revoked. On January 20, 1970, a memorandum in punjabi was served on the petitioner-firm through Mulkh Raj, the English translation of which is as under: "subject: Cancellation of the licence of the shop of country made liquor. Railway Road, Kapurthala, district Kapurthala. Memorandum you are licencee for selling country made liquor at the shop situated on the Railway Road, Kapurthala, for the year 1969-70. The amount of instalment, Rupees 22,916/- in respect of this shop for the month of november, 1969, which was to be deposited by the 25th of that month, has not been deposited by you till now. Hence you have violated condition No. 15 (ii) of the licence and Rule 36 (23) of the Punjab Liquor licence Rules. You are directed to deposit the said amount within four days, otherwise the licence of this shop shall be cancelled under Rule 37 (33) (i) of the Punjab Liquor Licence Rules, 1956 and under Section 36 (c) of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914. " This memorandum was issued by the Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner, jullundur Division, who is the Collector under the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (hereinafter called the Act), and Rules. The petitioner-firm did not deposit the amount mentioned in the memorandum and on February 3, 1970, an order cancelling the licence of the petitioner-firm was passed in the following words:--"the excise licensee of country liquor vend Railway Road in Kapurthala for the year 1969-70, by not depositing his licence fee for November, 1969, has contravened the provisions of Rule 36 (23) of the Punjab liquor Licence Rules, 1956, and rendered his licence liable for cancellation I accordingly, cancel the licence of the vend under Rule 36 of the Rules ibid and further decide that this should be reauctioned by public auction under the provisions of Rule 36 (24) of the said Rules. If the defaulter pays the dues before the date of reauction, the proceedings should be stopped and a case for imposition of an additional fee should be referred to this office. " this order does not seem to have been communicated to the petitioner-firm because on February 10, 1970, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Excise and taxation Officer, Kapurthala, as under:-- "with due respect I beg to write that our C. L. Vend, Railway Road, kapurthala, is lying closed for want of supply of country liquor. Kindly issue us 50 bags (900/b/ls) of country liquor from L-13 Kapurthala without delay so that we may be able to deposit the licence fee in respect of the said vend. If liquor is not supplied immediately, we will not be able to pay the licence fee. " Instead of supplying any liquor to the petitioner-firm, the Excise and Taxation officer, Kapurthala, passed an order on February 11, 1970, to the effect that the country liquor licence of the petitioner-firm had been cancelled by the Deputy excise and Taxation Commissioner, Jullundur Division, on February 3, 1970, on account of non-payment of licence fee for the month of November, 1969, and the vend would be put to reauction on February 13, 1970 at 10 A. M. in his office. The terms and conditions would be announced at the time of reauction. This order was got noted by Mulkh Raj at 8 P. M. on February 11, 1970, as is clear from annexure 'j" to the writ petition. The reauction was held on February 13, 1970 as a result of which the State suffered a loss of Rs. 33,635. 00 for which the petitioner-firm has been made liable. This amount is sought to be recovered from the petitioner-firm as arrears of land revenue. In the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that a demand of Rs. 56,551. 00 on account of the short-fall has been raised against it and that amount was sought to be recovered as arrears of land revenue. No demand notice has, however been, produced and it appears that the petitioner-firm has added Rs. 22,916. 00 on account of one monthly instalment of licence fee to the sum of Rs. 33,635. 00 while stating the sum of Rs. 56,551. 00 which is sought to be recovered from it. In the return filed by respondent 4, it has been stated that the Government suffered a loss of Rupees 33,635. 00 on account of short-fall in licence fee as a result of reauction and sum of Rs. 70,135. 00 was due from the petitioner-firm on account of the arrears of licence fee. It has not been mentioned in the return that any demand notice was issued to the petitioner-firm and if any demand notice was issued, for what amount it was. The petitioner has prayed for the quashing of the order or orders of cancellation of its licence, the quashing of the notice of demand. If any, issued by respondent 4 against it for the recovery of the so-called deficiency in licence fee as arrears of land revenue and directing the respondents not to make recovery of any sums whatsoever alleged to be due from the petitioner-firm in relation to the liquor vend at the Railway Road, kapurthala for the year 1969-70. It has also been prayed that the respondents should be directed not to place the petitioner-firm on the Excise Black List.
(3.) WRITTEN statement to the writ petition has been filed only by respondent 4 controverting the allegations of the petitioner-firm.;