Himachal Pradesh High Court
Nirmal Singh vs . State Of H.P. & Ors. on 20 September, 2023
Bench: Mamidanna Satya Ratna Sri Ramachandra Rao, Ajay Mohan Goel
Nirmal Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
CWP No. 6722 of 2023 .
20.09.2023 Present: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan & Sidharth Jalta, Deputy of Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State.
Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional rt Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Reply be filed within two weeks.
List on 26.09.2023.
CMP No. 12860 of 2023
2. Notice in above terms.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents, whereby, the quantities of the Annual Minimum Guarantee Quota of liquor in respect of liquor vends allotted to the petitioner, have been increased to the detriment of the petitioner after completion of the auction process.
4. Petitioner alleges that a State Excise Policy for the year 2023-24 (for short "Excise Policy") was approved on 6th March, 2023, which was conveyed to respondent no.2 on 07.03.2023.
Thereafter, based on the approved Excise Policy, the 2nd respondent published a booklet under his authority, called the "Excise Announcements for the year 2023-24", which inter alia, contains various features of the approved Excise Policy including the terms ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS and conditions and procedure to be followed for allotment of retail .
liquor vends by the processes of Auction-cum-Tender or by renewal or by allotment through draw of lots for the year 2023-24.
5. The respondent no.2, through a notice, issued the Schedule for the allotment of retail liquor vends in the State of of Himachal Pradesh through Auction-cum-Tender process for the Financial Year 2023-24. The dates of submission of the tender rt applications in respect of Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., were fixed for 15.03.2023 & 16.03.2023 and the date for bidding cum-opening was fixed for 17.03.2023.
6. The petitioner contends that the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum-Collector (Excise) (respondent no.3), issued on 13.03.2023 the reserve price of various Liquor Vends/Units in different Circles of District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, fixed by the 4th respondent.
7. In the said Annexure P-3, at serial no.7, for the Unit Kishanpura, Baddi, District Solan, H.P., with which we are concerned, the MGQ was also fixed for country liquor as 1,61,901.578 and the MGQ for IMFL was fixed as 88,495.278.
8. Petitioner contends that as per Clause 2.29 of "Announcements for the Allotment of Retail Excise Vends by Auction -cum-Tender for the year 2023-24", the MGQ allotted to a Unit should be divided into twelve parts as per the Condition no.4.3 to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on the payment of the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS license fee thereon and if it is not so lifted, there would be a penalty .
levied under Clause 4.3, at the rates specified therein.
9. He, therefore, contends that once the petitioner was induced to participate in the bidding/auction process on the basis of what is mentioned in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 by respondent of no.3, and had bid of Rs.14,01,00,000/- and was declared as successful bidder in respect of the retail liquor vends of the country rt liquor and foreign liquor comprised in the Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., by the Selection Committee constituted for the conduct of process of Auction-cum-Tender, the same could not be increased unilaterally by respondents.
10. He contends that Annexure P-4 proceedings was issued abruptly on 21.03.2023, enhancing the MGQ of Country Liquor to 2,82,619.601 (Country Liquor) and for IMFL to 1,46,775.552 and such enhancement in the MGQ is arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the Policy.
11. Petitioner contends that the terms and conditions contained in the "Excise Announcements 2023-24", nowhere provides that in case a bid higher than the reserve price is made for a particular Unit by an intending bidder and is accepted/approved by the respondents, the Annual MGQ fixed for that unit prior to initiation of the allotment process, shall also be enhanced.
::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS12. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the .
respondents, however, contends that as per Clause 2.16 of the Excise Policy, such enhancement is permitted.
13. He contends that such enhancement is necessary to prevent illicit sale of liquor and it is a Policy decision.
of
14. He further contends that the license issued on 01.05.2023 to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 (colly.), mentions rt the enhanced MGQ only and, therefore, the petitioner is bound to lift the said MGQ and cannot complain about it.
15. Learned Advocate further submits that the MGQ is enhanced to the highest bid made by the petitioner and there is nothing wrong with such enhancement.
16. Clause 2.16 relied upon by the learned Advocate General, states as under:-
"2.16 The District In-charge shall fix the minimum reserve price of each unit/vend based on the minimum guaranteed Quota. In case the sub-vend of unit is regularized the value of the sub-vend in the financial year will be added to that unit after giving the general increase as per Excise Announcements 2023-24 and the reserve price shall be fixed by the District In-charge accordingly. There shall be a fixed license fee in respect of Country Liquor. In the case of IMFL and BII, there are four slabs of license fee based on EDP rates and final value of the vend/unit shall be determined on the basis of EDP of different slabs of IMFL lifted by the licensee. For the purposes of fixation of reserve price of the vend/unit, the license fee applicable for the lowest slab of IMFL shall be taken as reference. The annual License Fee(MVV)of a particular vend/unit shall finally be determined based on the highest bid offered by successful tenderer/bidder. The quota of closed vends will be ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS allocated to the nearby vends. In case of opening of a new vend, quota of that vend will be determined by the .
District In-charge concerned. No bid/tender submitted below the reserve price will be accepted."
17. We are of the opinion that the language in Clause 2.16 does not permit a unilateral enhancement of MGQ as is sought to of be contended by the learned Advocate General. Moreover, the MGQ having been fixed in Clause 4.1 of the Excise Policy for each rt District, and under Clause 2.29 such MGQ allotted to a Unit would be further divided into twelve parts to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on payment of license fee thereon, prima facie it suggests that the MGQ fixed on 13.03.2023 on the basis of which bids were invited for each Unit, has to be treated as fixed and unalterable later.
18. If the same is permitted to be unilaterally varied thereon by the respondents, then there would be no meaning to the MGQ fixed under Clause 4.1 or as specified in Annexure P-3.
19. Admittedly, the licensee is required to lift 100% of MGQ prescribed as per Clause 4.3 of the Excise Policy only and not what the respondents are now asking him to lift by enhancing the MGQ, for which he never bid.
20. If the quantity of MGQ is not finalized at the time of grant of license as is sought to be contended by the Advocate General, then it would give a free hand to the State to enhance the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS MGQ far beyond the capacity of the bidder and compel him to lift .
it on penalty to be levied, if he failed to lift the enhanced quota.
21. Prima facie, this action of the respondents appears to be arbitrary, unilateral and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
of
22. Therefore, pending further orders, the respondents are restrained from demanding the petitioner to lift more than what is rt mentioned as MGQ in in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued by the 3rd respondent.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 20, 2023 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS Jarnail Singh vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
CWP No. 6723 of 2023.
20.09.2023 Present: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan & Sidharth Jalta, Deputy of Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State.
Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional rt Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Reply be filed within two weeks.
List on 26.09.2023.
CMP No. 12861 of 20232. Notice in above terms.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents, whereby, the quantities of the Annual Minimum Guarantee Quota of liquor in respect of liquor vends allotted to the petitioner, have been increased to the detriment of the petitioner after completion of the auction process.
4. Petitioner alleges that a State Excise Policy for the year 2023-24 (for short "Excise Policy") was approved on 6th March, 2023, which was conveyed to respondent no.2 on 07.03.2023.
Thereafter, based on the approved Excise Policy, the 2nd respondent published a booklet under his authority, called the "Excise Announcements for the year 2023-24", which inter alia, contains various features of the approved Excise Policy including the terms ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS and conditions and procedure to be followed for allotment of retail .
liquor vends by the processes of Auction-cum-Tender or by renewal or by allotment through draw of lots for the year 2023-24.
5. The respondent no.2, through a notice, issued the Schedule for the allotment of retail liquor vends in the State of of Himachal Pradesh through Auction-cum-Tender process for the Financial Year 2023-24. The dates of submission of the tender rt applications in respect of Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., were fixed for 15.03.2023 & 16.03.2023 and the date for bidding cum-opening was fixed for 17.03.2023.
6. The petitioner contends that the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum-Collector (Excise) (respondent no.3), issued on 13.03.2023 the reserve price of various Liquor Vends/Units in different Circles of District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, fixed by the 4th respondent.
7. In the said Annexure P-3, at serial no.1, for the Unit Nalagarh-Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., with which we are concerned, the MGQ was also fixed for country liquor as 5,32,257.070 and the MGQ for IMFL was fixed as 3,62,796.165.
8. Petitioner contends that as per Clause 2.29 of "Announcements for the Allotment of Retail Excise Vends by Auction -cum-Tender for the year 2023-24", the MGQ allotted to a Unit should be divided into twelve parts as per the Condition no.4.3 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on the payment of the .
license fee thereon and if it is not so lifted, there would be a penalty levied under Clause 4.3, at the rates specified therein.
9. He, therefore, contends that once the petitioner was induced to participate in the bidding/auction process on the basis of of what is mentioned in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 by respondent no.3, and had bid of Rs.37,87,00,000/- and was declared as rt successful bidder in respect of the retail liquor vends of the country liquor and foreign liquor comprised in the Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., by the Selection Committee constituted for the conduct of process of Auction-cum-Tender, the same could not be increased unilaterally by respondents.
10. He contends that Annexure P-4 proceedings was issued abruptly on 21.03.2023, enhancing the MGQ of Country Liquor to 6,94,989.121 (Country Liquor) and for IMFL to 4,41,359.981 and such enhancement in the MGQ is arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the Policy.
11. Petitioner contends that the terms and conditions contained in the "Excise Announcements 2023-24", nowhere provides that in case a bid higher than the reserve price is made for a particular Unit by an intending bidder and is accepted/approved by the respondents, the Annual MGQ fixed for that unit prior to initiation of the allotment process, shall also be enhanced.
::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS12. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the .
respondents, however, contends that as per Clause 2.16 of the Excise Policy, such enhancement is permitted.
13. He contends that such enhancement is necessary to prevent illicit sale of liquor and it is a Policy decision.
of
14. He further contends that the license issued on 29.03.2023 to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 (colly.), mentions rt the enhanced MGQ only and, therefore, the petitioner is bound to lift the said MGQ and cannot complain about it.
15. Learned Advocate further submits that the MGQ is enhanced to the highest bid made by the petitioner and there is nothing wrong with such enhancement.
16. Clause 2.16 relied upon by the learned Advocate General, states as under:-
"2.16 The District In-charge shall fix the minimum reserve price of each unit/vend based on the minimum guaranteed Quota. In case the sub-vend of unit is regularized the value of the sub-vend in the financial year will be added to that unit after giving the general increase as per Excise Announcements 2023-24 and the reserve price shall be fixed by the District In-charge accordingly. There shall be a fixed license fee in respect of Country Liquor. In the case of IMFL and BII, there are four slabs of license fee based on EDP rates and final value of the vend/unit shall be determined on the basis of EDP of different slabs of IMFL lifted by the licensee. For the purposes of fixation of reserve price of the vend/unit, the license fee applicable for the lowest slab of IMFL shall be taken as reference. The annual License Fee(MVV)of a particular vend/unit shall finally be determined based on the highest bid offered by successful tenderer/bidder. The quota of closed vends will be ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS allocated to the nearby vends. In case of opening of a new vend, quota of that vend will be determined by the .
District In-charge concerned. No bid/tender submitted below the reserve price will be accepted."
17. We are of the opinion that the language in Clause 2.16 does not permit a unilateral enhancement of MGQ as is sought to of be contended by the learned Advocate General. Moreover, the MGQ having been fixed in Clause 4.1 of the Excise Policy for each rt District, and under Clause 2.29 such MGQ allotted to a Unit would be further divided into twelve parts to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on payment of license fee thereon, prima facie it suggests that the MGQ fixed on 13.03.2023 on the basis of which bids were invited for each Unit, has to be treated as fixed and unalterable later.
18. If the same is permitted to be unilaterally varied thereon by the respondents, then there would be no meaning to the MGQ fixed under Clause 4.1 or as specified in Annexure P-3.
19. Admittedly, the licensee is required to lift 100% of MGQ prescribed as per Clause 4.3 of the Excise Policy only and not what the respondents are now asking him to lift by enhancing the MGQ, for which he never bid.
20. If the quantity of MGQ is not finalized at the time of grant of license as is sought to be contended by the Advocate General, then it would give a free hand to the State to enhance the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS MGQ far beyond the capacity of the bidder and compel him to lift .
it on penalty to be levied, if he failed to lift the enhanced quota.
21. Prima facie, this action of the respondents appears to be arbitrary, unilateral and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
of
22. Therefore, pending further orders, the respondents are restrained from demanding the petitioner to lift more than what is rt mentioned as MGQ in in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued by the 3rd respondent.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 20, 2023 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS Bhupindere Kaur vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
CWP No. 6725 of 2023.
20.09.2023 Present: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan & Sidharth Jalta, Deputy of Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State.
Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional rt Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Reply be filed within two weeks.
List on 26.09.2023.
CMP No. 12863 of 20232. Notice in above terms.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents, whereby, the quantities of the Annual Minimum Guarantee Quota of liquor in respect of liquor vends allotted to the petitioner, have been increased to the detriment of the petitioner after completion of the auction process.
4. Petitioner alleges that a State Excise Policy for the year 2023-24 (for short "Excise Policy") was approved on 6th March, 2023, which was conveyed to respondent no.2 on 07.03.2023.
Thereafter, based on the approved Excise Policy, the 2nd respondent published a booklet under his authority, called the "Excise Announcements for the year 2023-24", which inter alia, contains various features of the approved Excise Policy including the terms ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS and conditions and procedure to be followed for allotment of retail .
liquor vends by the processes of Auction-cum-Tender or by renewal or by allotment through draw of lots for the year 2023-24.
5. The respondent no.2, through a notice, issued the Schedule for the allotment of retail liquor vends in the State of of Himachal Pradesh through Auction-cum-Tender process for the Financial Year 2023-24. The dates of submission of the tender rt applications in respect of Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., were fixed for 15.03.2023 & 16.03.2023 and the date for bidding cum-opening was fixed for 17.03.2023.
6. The petitioner contends that the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum-Collector (Excise) (respondent no.3), issued on 13.03.2023 the reserve price of various Liquor Vends/Units in different Circles of District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, fixed by the 4th respondent.
7. In the said Annexure P-3, at serial no.3, for the Unit Sai Road Baddi, District Solan, H.P., with which we are concerned, the MGQ was also fixed for country liquor as 90,402.144 and the MGQ for IMFL was fixed as 1,47,337.279.
8. Petitioner contends that as per Clause 2.29 of "Announcements for the Allotment of Retail Excise Vends by Auction -cum-Tender for the year 2023-24", the MGQ allotted to a Unit should be divided into twelve parts as per the Condition no.4.3 to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on the payment of the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS license fee thereon and if it is not so lifted, there would be a penalty .
levied under Clause 4.3, at the rates specified therein.
9. He, therefore, contends that once the petitioner was induced to participate in the bidding/auction process on the basis of what is mentioned in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 by respondent of no.3, and had bid of Rs.12,75,51,000/- and was declared as successful bidder in respect of the retail liquor vends of the country rt liquor and foreign liquor comprised in the Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., by the Selection Committee constituted for the conduct of process of Auction-cum-Tender, the same could not be increased unilaterally by respondents.
10. He contends that Annexure P-4 proceedings was issued abruptly on 21.03.2023, enhancing the MGQ of Country Liquor to 1,73,229.281 (Country Liquor) and for IMFL to 1,87,324.583 and such enhancement in the MGQ is arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the Policy.
11. Petitioner contends that the terms and conditions contained in the "Excise Announcements 2023-24", nowhere provides that in case a bid higher than the reserve price is made for a particular Unit by an intending bidder and is accepted/approved by the respondents, the Annual MGQ fixed for that unit prior to initiation of the allotment process, shall also be enhanced.
::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS12. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the .
respondents, however, contends that as per Clause 2.16 of the Excise Policy, such enhancement is permitted.
13. He contends that such enhancement is necessary to prevent illicit sale of liquor and it is a Policy decision.
of
14. He further contends that the license issued on 30.04.2023 to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 (colly.), mentions rt the enhanced MGQ only and, therefore, the petitioner is bound to lift the said MGQ and cannot complain about it.
15. Learned Advocate further submits that the MGQ is enhanced to the highest bid made by the petitioner and there is nothing wrong with such enhancement.
16. Clause 2.16 relied upon by the learned Advocate General, states as under:-
"2.16 The District In-charge shall fix the minimum reserve price of each unit/vend based on the minimum guaranteed Quota. In case the sub-vend of unit is regularized the value of the sub-vend in the financial year will be added to that unit after giving the general increase as per Excise Announcements 2023-24 and the reserve price shall be fixed by the District In-charge accordingly. There shall be a fixed license fee in respect of Country Liquor. In the case of IMFL and BII, there are four slabs of license fee based on EDP rates and final value of the vend/unit shall be determined on the basis of EDP of different slabs of IMFL lifted by the licensee. For the purposes of fixation of reserve price of the vend/unit, the license fee applicable for the lowest slab of IMFL shall be taken as reference. The annual License Fee(MVV)of a particular vend/unit shall finally be determined based on the highest bid offered by successful tenderer/bidder. The quota of closed vends will be ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS allocated to the nearby vends. In case of opening of a new vend, quota of that vend will be determined by the .
District In-charge concerned. No bid/tender submitted below the reserve price will be accepted."
17. We are of the opinion that the language in Clause 2.16 does not permit a unilateral enhancement of MGQ as is sought to of be contended by the learned Advocate General. Moreover, the MGQ having been fixed in Clause 4.1 of the Excise Policy for each rt District, and under Clause 2.29 such MGQ allotted to a Unit would be further divided into twelve parts to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on payment of license fee thereon, prima facie it suggests that the MGQ fixed on 13.03.2023 on the basis of which bids were invited for each Unit, has to be treated as fixed and unalterable later.
18. If the same is permitted to be unilaterally varied thereon by the respondents, then there would be no meaning to the MGQ fixed under Clause 4.1 or as specified in Annexure P-3.
19. Admittedly, the licensee is required to lift 100% of MGQ prescribed as per Clause 4.3 of the Excise Policy only and not what the respondents are now asking him to lift by enhancing the MGQ, for which he never bid.
20. If the quantity of MGQ is not finalized at the time of grant of license as is sought to be contended by the Advocate General, then it would give a free hand to the State to enhance the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS MGQ far beyond the capacity of the bidder and compel him to lift .
it on penalty to be levied, if he failed to lift the enhanced quota.
21. Prima facie, this action of the respondents appears to be arbitrary, unilateral and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
of
22. Therefore, pending further orders, the respondents are restrained from demanding the petitioner to lift more than what is rt mentioned as MGQ in in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued by the 3rd respondent.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 20, 2023 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS Subhash Kumar vs. State of H.P. & Ors.
CWP No. 6724 of 2023.
20.09.2023 Present: Mr. Hamender Singh Chandel, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General, with M/s Rakesh Dhaulta and Pranay Pratap Singh, Additional Advocate Generals and M/s Arsh Rattan & Sidharth Jalta, Deputy of Advocate Generals, for the respondents-State.
Notice. Mr. Rakesh Dhaulta, learned Additional rt Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Reply be filed within two weeks.
List on 26.09.2023.
CMP No. 12862 of 20232. Notice in above terms.
3. In this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the action of the respondents, whereby, the quantities of the Annual Minimum Guarantee Quota of liquor in respect of liquor vends allotted to the petitioner, have been increased to the detriment of the petitioner after completion of the auction process.
4. Petitioner alleges that a State Excise Policy for the year 2023-24 (for short "Excise Policy") was approved on 6th March, 2023, which was conveyed to respondent no.2 on 07.03.2023.
Thereafter, based on the approved Excise Policy, the 2nd respondent published a booklet under his authority, called the "Excise Announcements for the year 2023-24", which inter alia, contains various features of the approved Excise Policy including the terms ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS and conditions and procedure to be followed for allotment of retail .
liquor vends by the processes of Auction-cum-Tender or by renewal or by allotment through draw of lots for the year 2023-24.
5. The respondent no.2, through a notice, issued the Schedule for the allotment of retail liquor vends in the State of of Himachal Pradesh through Auction-cum-Tender process for the Financial Year 2023-24. The dates of submission of the tender rt applications in respect of Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., were fixed for 15.03.2023 & 16.03.2023 and the date for bidding cum-opening was fixed for 17.03.2023.
6. The petitioner contends that the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes and Excise-cum-Collector (Excise) (respondent no.3), issued on 13.03.2023 the reserve price of various Liquor Vends/Units in different Circles of District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, fixed by the 4th respondent.
7. In the said Annexure P-3, at serial no.4, for the Unit Katha, Revenue District Baddi Barotiwala, District Solan, H.P., with which we are concerned, the MGQ was also fixed for country liquor as 1,91,565.852 and the MGQ for IMFL was fixed as 1,13,437.506.
8. Petitioner contends that as per Clause 2.29 of "Announcements for the Allotment of Retail Excise Vends by Auction -cum-Tender for the year 2023-24", the MGQ allotted to a Unit should be divided into twelve parts as per the Condition no.4.3 ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on the payment of the .
license fee thereon and if it is not so lifted, there would be a penalty levied under Clause 4.3, at the rates specified therein.
9. He, therefore, contends that once the petitioner was induced to participate in the bidding/auction process on the basis of of what is mentioned in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 by respondent no.3, and had bid of Rs.15,22,00,000/- and was declared as rt successful bidder in respect of the retail liquor vends of the country liquor and foreign liquor comprised in the Baddi-Barotiwala, Revenue District, District Solan, H.P., by the Selection Committee constituted for the conduct of process of Auction-cum-Tender, the same could not be increased unilaterally by respondents.
10. He contends that Annexure P-4 proceedings was issued abruptly on 21.03.2023, enhancing the MGQ of Country Liquor to 2,98,418.034 (Country Liquor) and for IMFL to 1,65,023.626 and such enhancement in the MGQ is arbitrary, contrary to the terms of the Policy.
11. Petitioner contends that the terms and conditions contained in the "Excise Announcements 2023-24", nowhere provides that in case a bid higher than the reserve price is made for a particular Unit by an intending bidder and is accepted/approved by the respondents, the Annual MGQ fixed for that unit prior to initiation of the allotment process, shall also be enhanced.
::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS12. The learned Advocate General, appearing for the .
respondents, however, contends that as per Clause 2.16 of the Excise Policy, such enhancement is permitted.
13. He contends that such enhancement is necessary to prevent illicit sale of liquor and it is a Policy decision.
of
14. He further contends that the license issued on 29.03.2023 to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2 (colly.), mentions rt the enhanced MGQ only and, therefore, the petitioner is bound to lift the said MGQ and cannot complain about it.
15. Learned Advocate further submits that the MGQ is enhanced to the highest bid made by the petitioner and there is nothing wrong with such enhancement.
16. Clause 2.16 relied upon by the learned Advocate General, states as under:-
"2.16 The District In-charge shall fix the minimum reserve price of each unit/vend based on the minimum guaranteed Quota. In case the sub-vend of unit is regularized the value of the sub-vend in the financial year will be added to that unit after giving the general increase as per Excise Announcements 2023-24 and the reserve price shall be fixed by the District In-charge accordingly. There shall be a fixed license fee in respect of Country Liquor. In the case of IMFL and BII, there are four slabs of license fee based on EDP rates and final value of the vend/unit shall be determined on the basis of EDP of different slabs of IMFL lifted by the licensee. For the purposes of fixation of reserve price of the vend/unit, the license fee applicable for the lowest slab of IMFL shall be taken as reference. The annual License Fee(MVV)of a particular vend/unit shall finally be determined based on the highest bid offered by successful tenderer/bidder. The quota of closed vends will be ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS allocated to the nearby vends. In case of opening of a new vend, quota of that vend will be determined by the .
District In-charge concerned. No bid/tender submitted below the reserve price will be accepted."
17. We are of the opinion that the language in Clause 2.16 does not permit a unilateral enhancement of MGQ as is sought to of be contended by the learned Advocate General. Moreover, the MGQ having been fixed in Clause 4.1 of the Excise Policy for each rt District, and under Clause 2.29 such MGQ allotted to a Unit would be further divided into twelve parts to be lifted compulsorily on monthly basis on payment of license fee thereon, prima facie it suggests that the MGQ fixed on 13.03.2023 on the basis of which bids were invited for each Unit, has to be treated as fixed and unalterable later.
18. If the same is permitted to be unilaterally varied thereon by the respondents, then there would be no meaning to the MGQ fixed under Clause 4.1 or as specified in Annexure P-3.
19. Admittedly, the licensee is required to lift 100% of MGQ prescribed as per Clause 4.3 of the Excise Policy only and not what the respondents are now asking him to lift by enhancing the MGQ, for which he never bid.
20. If the quantity of MGQ is not finalized at the time of grant of license as is sought to be contended by the Advocate General, then it would give a free hand to the State to enhance the ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS MGQ far beyond the capacity of the bidder and compel him to lift .
it on penalty to be levied, if he failed to lift the enhanced quota.
21. Prima facie, this action of the respondents appears to be arbitrary, unilateral and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
of
22. Therefore, pending further orders, the respondents are restrained from demanding the petitioner to lift more than what is rt mentioned as MGQ in in the proceedings dt. 13.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) issued by the 3rd respondent.
(M.S. Ramachandra Rao) Chief Justice (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 20, 2023 (Vinod) ::: Downloaded on - 20/09/2023 20:38:10 :::CIS