NARINDER CHAND RAM NATH AND CO Vs. GOVERNOR HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A very significant question arises on determination whereof would rest the ultimate fate of this Letters Patent appeal. The question is whether any equity calling for adequate relief would arise in favour of a citizen on the basis of representation made on behalf of the State (in this case the respondents to the appeal) which may not be based upon any legal sanction behind it.

(2.) The Letters Patent appeal has been substantially urged on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in Air 1968 Sc 718, union of India v. M/s. Anglo Afghan Agencies. The appellants' counsel was allowed to argue as if he was once again urging the acceptance of his civil writ petition No. 131 of 1967. The writ petition was filed by M/s. Narinder Chand Hem Raj and Company, English Wine Contractor, the Mail, Simla through its partner named Shri Hem Raj. The respondents were the Lieutenant Governor, Administrator, of the Union Territory of Himachal Pradesh, the Exise and Taxation Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh Government, the Collector, Excise and Taxation of the same Government and last of all the Excise and Taxation Officer was added as respondent No. 4.

(3.) The main allegation, on which the pleas raised through that writ petition rested, related to a specific announcement alleged to have been made on the 31st March 1967 when an action was held in respect of granting of the licence for the sale of the Indian made foreign liquor. The appellants as petitioners, alleged that after reading the conditions of the auction to the prospective bidders, one of whom were the appellants an announcement was made that no sales tax would be leviable on the sales of Indian made foreign liquor and beer and that the licensees in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 of Simla would purchase the liquor and beer from the licence at Simla who may be granted the licence in Form L-2. It was made clear that the licensees holding licences in Forms L-3, L-4 and L-5 were bar licences. The appellants alleged that they offered the bid in view of the said announcement made at the time of the auction held on the 31st March 1967. The argument at the Bar was framed in more emphatic phraseology than that used in the petition. It was to the effect that the petitioners, who are the appellants before this Court were defrauded into giving a higher did because of the alleged announcement made by respondent No. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the Court was bound to uphold the rule of law and he submitted that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the afore-mentioned case this Court being also a Court of equity must grant the reliefs for which the petition had been filed.