M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. Debi Pal, learned Senior Counsel appearing on be - half of the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Sinha, learned Advocate General appearing on be - half of the respondents on the interlocutory application being LA. No. 1480/2005 filed by the respondent -State for vacating the order of stay dated 18.5.2005 passed in the instant writ petitions.
(2.) THE petitioners have filed the instant writ petitions challenging the tender notice dated 27.1.2005 published in daily newspaper for supply of country liquor in the State of Jharkhand for the period 1.4.2005 to 31 March, 2008 and also for a direction to calculate the minimum guarantee quota on actual consumption of liquor in the preceding year and not to demand security deposit and solvency certificate in terms of clause (2) (Ka) and 2 (Gha) of the tender notice. It appears that a similar writ petition was filed by another tender, namely, M/s. Pick Up Credit and Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. Ranchi being WPC No. 1059/2005 challenging the tender notice dated 27.1.2005 and for other reliefs. The writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 2.3.2005 by passing the following order. "Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the tender notice dated 27.1.2005 published in the daily newspaper 'Prabhat Khabar dated 7.2.2005 whereby tenders have been in - vited for the purpose of supply of country liquor in the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner contended that one of the conditions put in the tender notice for deposit of amount as security deposit which is excessive of consumption of liquor in the said district and also fixing of an particular amount as proof of solvency irrespective of consumption of liquor in the said district is arbitrary in nature. The Government in the matter of is - suance of tender notice particularly in Excise matter has an absolute right to take a policy decision and to fix conditions in the tender notice. Such policy decision cannot be challenged by the prospective tenderers. The matter has been set at rest by the Supreme Court in the case of Fida Karim V/s. State of Bihar reported in 1992 (2) UJ (SC) 577. In my opinion, therefore, this Court cannot dictate the Government to fix particular conditions in the matter of inviting tenders for the purpose of Ex - cise license. I do not find any merit in this writ petition which is accordingly, dismissed." In said judgment was challenged by the above -named writ petitioner by filing Letter Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 170/ 2005 and a Division Bench of this Court passed the following order on 13.4.2005 : 'This appeal will be heard. The respondents will be entitled to file their counter affidavit to the memorandum of appeal by 25th April, 2005. Rejoinder, if any, be filed by 6th May, 2005. Let this matter be listed for hearing within first five items on 9th May, 2005. During pendency of this appeal the respondents will be entitled to continue with the tender process but shall not finalize the same, if not already finalized. This interim order will be confined only to Ranchi Zone." In the said L.P.A, No. 170/2005 stay vacating petition was filed on behalf of the State and after hearing the parties, the Division Bench, in terms of the order dated 19.5.2005 modified its earlier order dated 13.4.2005 by permitting the respondent to continue and finalize the tender process but the same will be subject to final result of the appeal. Taking into consideration the afore - said orders this Court, in the instant writ petitions passed interim order 18.5.2005. The order dated 18.5.2005 passed in these writ petitions reads as under : "As prayed for by the learned coun - sel for the State, put up this case on 14th June, 2005 to enable the respondents -State to file counter affidavit. In the meantime, respondents will continue with the tender process but shall not finalise the same, if not already finalised in view of the order passed in L.P.A. No. 170/2005." The respondent -State now prays for vacating the aforesaid order dated 18.5.2005. After hearing the counsel for the parties I am of the opinion that the aforesaid order dated 18.5.2005 should be modified in the same term as has been done by the Division Bench in the aforesaid L.P.A. No. 170/2005. Accordingly, the order dated 18.5.2005 passed in the instant writ petitions is modified by permitting the respondents to continue and finalize the tender process with a condition that the same shall be subject to final result of the said Letters Patent Appeal. The alteration, in consumption fee from Rs. 1/ - per liter to Rs. 2/ - per liter will also be subject to final result of the aforesaid appeal.;