State Of Uttar Pradesh vs Klshori Lal Minocha on 21 December, 1979
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on State of U. P. v. Kishore Lal, AIR 1980 SC 680. That was also a case for the recovery of short-fall as a result of re-auction of the licence rights and the State Government had filed a suit for the recovery of damages resulting from the short-fall. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since the bid was not accepted by the Commissioner, there was no concluded contract and hence the bidder was not liable to pay any damages, in that case, the highest bidder had not even deposited l/6th of the bid money as required under the Excise Rules, in our view, this ruling helps to the petitioner only to the extent that it supports Its contention that a suit should have been filed for the recovery of the damages in the circumstances of the present case. As regards, the contention that there was no concluded contract, we are of the view that the facts of that case are distinguishable. Rule 373 of the U. P. Excise Rules governs auction and contains general conditions as to auction. The relevant part of the said Rule is as below :