RAJENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) These appeals are preferred against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowing the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of a learned single Judge who had allowed the writ petition filed by the appellant. While we agree fully with the reasoning and conclusion of the Division Bench, we think it necessary at the same time to emphasise a few aspects relevant in the case of such contracts. First, the relevant facts briefly.

(3.) For the excise year 1994-95, the appellant was the highest bidder for certain number of liquor shops. His bid in a sum of Rs. 11,67,00,000/-was accepted, payable in monthly instaments of Rs 97,25,000/- each. After making the necessary deposits and after complying with other conditions, licences were granted to him and he commenced the business with affect from 1-4-1995. He failed to pay the monthly rental(licence fee) for the months of July and August, 1994. Thereupon a notice dated 9-8-94 (exhibit R-3) was issued by the authorities intimating him that he was in arrears of the licence fee for the months of July and August and that if he does not pay the same, the shops would be reauctioned. The appellant was asked to be present personally on 23-8-1994 for showing cause. Though the appellant received the said notice, he did not appear before the specified authority. He thus failed to avail of the opportunity of personal hearing afforded to him. (Though the appellant disputed this fact, the Division Bench has accepted the respondent's contention and has found as a fact that the appellant did fail to appear on the date of hearing. We accept the said finding). On 2-9-1994,a notification was issued- communicated to a large number of excise officers and other departments and a copy of which was also sent to the appellant-stating that if the appellant did not clear the arrears on or before 12-9-94, the shops would be sold by reauction to be held at 2-00 p.m. on 12-9-94. The said notification is marked exhibit R-12.. It was also published in the daily newspaper, Nav Bharat Times. The notification mentioned the precise amount of arrears due from the appellant and stated that on the reauction being held, the existing licence in favour of the appellant shall stand cancelled. Since the appellant failed to pay, reauction was held on 12-9-1994, whereafter, a demand was made upon the appellant for the loss of revenue resulting from reauction, as provided by sub-sec. (4) (b) of S.31 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act. We may set out sub-sec. (4) of S.31 at this stage: