A.L.BAHRI, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by M/s. Diwan Singh and Company as well as its partner Diwan Singh under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing auction of liquor vend of Group No. 1, additional vends of L-2 and Group Nos. II and III of Bareta District Mansa, in favour of respondents Nos. 5 to 7 Sukhnal Singh Gurinder Singh and Company and others. Further direction is sought that the aforesaid vends should be allotted to the highest bidder M/s. Varinder Kumar and Company, Mansa, and if that is not possible then to the petitioner who was the second highest bidder. Further prayer has been made that in the alternative the liquor vends should be re-auctioned. The petitioner was ready to deposit a sum Rs. 20,000,00/ - as security and his first bid should be taken as of Rupees 10,000,00/- more than the bid amount for the licence fee on which licences have been granted to respondents Nos. 5 to 7.
(2.) The auction took place in the Hall of Sukhraj Cinema, Bathinda on 18/03/1993, as conducted by the official respondents, officers of the Excise and Taxation Department. The terms and conditions of the auction have been given in the writ petition. Some amount was required to be deposited on the spot and the remaining within seven days or before 31/03/1993. The auction was for the year 1993-94 commencing from 1/04/1993. Group No. 1 of Bareta was to be auctioned and thereafter Licence L-2 at Bareta Mandi was to be given to the same licensee on a fixed fee of Rs. 5.10 lacs. The attached vends Nos. II and III were also to be given at the fixed incidence of Rs. 55.90. The Petitioner is alleged to have given the bid of Rs. 1.24 Crores whereas M/s. Varinder Kumar and Company gave the highest bid or Rs. 1.25 Crores. In spite of the highest bid given by M/s. Varinder Kumar and Company the vend was not given to them but the same was given to respondent No. 5 M/s. Sukhpal Singh, Gurinder Singh and Company for mala fide and extraneous considerations with respect to respondents Nos. 6 and 7. It was stated that they were not eligible to give the auction. They had not deposited the requisite fee for taking part in the auction. Respondent No. 5 did not deposit the amount of auction money on the day of the auction. He is alleged to have deposited the same on the following day, whereas respondents Nos. 6 and 7 deposited such amount much after i. e. on 24/03/1993. From these facts it is asserted on behalf of the petitioners that in fact respondent No. 5 never participated in the bid and a fraud was played upon the State to allot the vend to him subsequent to the auction.
(3.) On notice of motion having been issued written statements have been filed by the official respondents as well as by respondents Nos. 5 to 7. The facts alleged in the writ petition have been controverted. Accordingly to them respondent No. 5 gave the highest bid of Rs. 1.15 crores which was accepted. Since on the day of the auction there was strike of the bank employees of the Nationalised Banks, the requisite amount of auction money was deposited on the following day. They have also demonstrated that on the day of the auction they had sufficient money which was shown on the spot for payment to cover the auction money. Raising preliminary objections it has been alleged that no legal right of the petitioner has been violated to enable him to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition also deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay. Gurinder Singh is stated to be a partner in all the three firms of respondents Nos. 5 to 7 and under the terms and conditions of the auction at the finalisation of the auction he could join with his other partners. Even if there was some delay in depositing the auction money, though the entire amount required to be deposited, was in fact deposited before 31/03/1993, the grant of licence issued in favour of the replying respondents could not be questioned. Similar pleas have been taken by respondents Nos. 5 to 7 in their written statements.;