- (1.) Sh. S.L. Vermani is the managing partner of Messrs S.K. & Co. Rewari. It is the stand of the petitioner in the writ petition that auction for the grant of L-II licence was held in the month of March, 1991 for the financial year 1991-92 The petitioner-firm gave bids for the two groups at Rewari. They gave a bid for Group I for Rs. one crore and one thousand and for the Group II it gave a bid for Rs one crore and one lac. The bid was accepted for Rs. one lac and one thousand and the acceptance thereof was duly got signed from the partners by the department. It is further averred that the petitioner received copies of the licence for Group I and Group II dated June 10, 1991, issued by respondent No. 3. This was received by the petitioner in the second week of June, 1991. Copies of the licences have been filed alongwith the writ petition as Annexures P1 and P2. It is further stated in the writ petition that the amount of auction money for Group I was correctly mentioned as Rs. one crore and one thousand but the amount for I-II i.e. Group II (Annexure P2) it was wrongly mentioned as Rs. one crore and 10 lacs. This was not the correct amount because the bid given by the petitioner was Rs. one crore and one lac but it was wrongly stated in Annexure P2 as Rs. one crore and ten lac. On the bid sheets, it was specifically mentioned that the licence is accepted for Rs. one crore and one lac. It bears the signatures of the petitioner. Thereupon the petitioner-firm submitted a representation to respondent No.3, the licensing authority. They submitted in the representation that the bid amount was Rs. one crore and one lac and not one crore and 10 lacs. It was specifically stated in the representation that the figure mentioned in Annexure P2 was wrong. A copy of the representation is Annexure P3 alongwith the writ petition. No decision was taken on the said representation. The petitioner thereupon filed a writ petition in the Punjab & Haryana High Court which came up for hearing, before A.L. Bahri and V.K. Bali, JJ. on January 8, 1991. The Bench directed that the representation be decided within a week. In pursuance of the directions given by the High Court, the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 3, the petitioner submitted another representation of 16th December, 1991 (Annexure P4). The petitioner requested the Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner (respondent No. 3) that an expert may be allowed to be examined at the cost of the petitioner but this request was not allowed. The petitioner filed before respondent No. 3 affidavits of various parties which were present at that time of the bid, in support of their stand that the petitioner's bid was for Rs. one crore and one lac. The petitioner filed affidavit of 19 persons who were present at that time of auction. The petitioner even requested that the parties which had filed affidavit may be examined. This request was also not accepted. The parties which filed the affidavits, their stand could have been verified by cross-examination. Respondent No. 3, vide order dated January 20, 1992 rejected the representation of the petitioner. A copy of the said order is Annexure P5. The petitioner further averred that they gave a bid for Rs. one crore and one lac. It is further averred by the petitioner that either there is a mistake in noting down the bid amount by the officers of the department or the amount has been changed at a later stage. The respondent in its order has given its own opinion finding out difference in the ink used in the bid sheets. It is submitted that the order of the respondent is a non-speaking order inasmuch as it does not give reasons why the affidavits of 24 persons have been brushed aside. It has also not been mentioned in the order why the respondent-authority refused to examine them.
(2.) The petitioner in the writ petition have stated the amount of bids offered by various parties. It is averred as follows in para 15(iii) That the trends of the auction would clearly show that the amount has to be; 101 lacs and not Rs 110 lacs as the following chart would show that there was a difference of just a few thousands rupees between different bids which took place on that day. The licence fee for the previous year was Rs. 84 lacs and this year the minimum licence fee was fixed at Rs. 95 lacs. The different licensees gave their respective bids in the following manner and at the following rates - a ) Surjan Singh & Co. Rs. 95,10,000 b) Virmani & Co. Rs. 95 ,12,000 c ) Bahadur Singh & Co. Rs. 95,13,000 d) Saban Singh & Co. Rs. 95 ,15,000 e) S.K. & Co. Rs. 96 ,00,000 f) Sajjan Singh & Co. Rs. 1 ,00,00,000 g) S.K. & Company Rs. 1 ,01,00,000 With reference to the above bid statement, it is submitted by the petitioner that there was a difference of a few thousands between one bid and another. If the licence fee stated by the respondent is accepted then the difference between the 6th and the 7th bid is taken, it would be Rs. 10 lacs. This is completely disproportionate to the normal trend of the bid. It is submitted that these circumstances also show that the stand of the petitioner that he accepted the bid for Rs. one crore and one lac was correct. It is also averred that the action of the respondent in altering the bid sheets and demanding higher licence fee on the basis of the unilateral change amounts to imposing unreasonable restriction on petitioner's fundamental right to carry on business under Articles 9(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is also averred that the action of the respondent is arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and in contravention of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
(3.) Written statement has been filed by Sh. K.L. Narula, Joint Excise & Taxation Commissioner, on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. In the written statement, the respondent has stated that the petitioner gave a bid for Rs. one crore and ten lacs and the licence fee in respect of 4 L-2 comprising Group II was correctly mentioned. It is further averred in the written statement that the installments were paid by the petitioner on the basis of the licence fee being Rs. one crore and ten lacs. It is averred that this shows that the bid was accepted for Rs. one Crore and ten lacs. It is also reiterated in the written statement that the petitioner is estopped from challenging the bid sheet. It is pleaded in the return that there is some interpolation in the bid sheet and that the petitioner is trying to take benefit thereof. It is prayed in the written statement that the writ petition may be dismissed.;