TMI Blog1954 (5) TMI 19X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 116 of 1953. M.C. Setalvad Attorney-Generalfor India, (H. J. Umrigar and Rajinder Narain, with him) for the appellant. Nitoor Sriniva8a Rao, Advocate-General Of Mysore, (R. Ganapathy Iyer, with him) for respondents Nos. 1 to 3. M. S. K. Aiyangar for respondent No. 4. 1954. May 24. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.-We are concerned in this appeal with the sale of a liquor contract for the year 1953-54 in the State of Mysore. The appellant, Guruswamy, and the fourth respondent, Thimmappa, are rival liquor contractors. The contract for the City and Taluk of Bangalore was auctioned by the third respondent, the Deputy Commissioner, on 27th April, 1953. The appellant s bid of Rs., 1,80.000 a month was the highest, so the contract was knocked down in his favour subject to formal confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. n le same ay the appellant deposited RS. 1,99,618-12-0. The fourth respondent, Thimmappa, was present at the auction but did not bid. Instead of that he went direct to the Excise Commissioner behind the appellant s back and made an offer of Rs. 1,85,000. On 11th May, 1953, the Excise Commissioner passed the following order:- "The highest bid receiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auction or by such other method as may be notified by Government." Rule I. 2. is also relevant. It says- "In cases where the right of retail vend is permitted by Government to be disposed of by calling for tenders, a notification calling for the same shall be pub lished by the Excise Commissioner in three successive issues of the Mysore Gazette, after obtaining the previous approval of the Government therefor." Then follow a series of rules about auctions. Out of them, Rule II. 8 is all we need note. It runs- ,, The shops will be knocked down to the highest bidder, but the sale will be subject to formal confirma. tion by the Deputy Commissioner, who shall be at liberty to accept or reject any bid at his discretion. Such formal confirmation will be tantamount to an acceptance of the bid unless revised by the Excise Commissioner for special reasons ". Finally, we come to Rule II. 10. It is as follows: "Shops remaining unsold at the first auction or shops, the sales of which have not been confirmed but cancelled, will ordinarily be disposed of by re-auction or by tender or otherwise at the discretion of the Deputy Commissioner later on." This Court had occasion to observe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, then it is essential that due notice and publicity be given of the "otherwise" method in a Government notification as Rule I. 1 directs. The Gazette is issued every week and where necessary a special edition of the Gazette can be issued at a day s notice, so the urgency of the matter is no real reason for bypassing the Rules. What the Legislature has insisted on is that whenever there is a departure from the methods of auction and tender provided for in the Rules, the departure must be sanctioned by Government and must be "notified". The matter -cannot be left to the arbitrary discretion of some lesser authority. In the present case, there has not been any notification in the Gazette to bring the "otherwise" portion of Rule I. I into play, nor have tenders been called for in the only way which Rule I. 2 permits. We are therefore left with the normal mode of sale contemplated by the Rules, namely public auction. It is admitted that the contract was auctioned on 27th April, 1953; it is admitted that the appellant bid up to Rs. 1,80,000 and it is admitted that that was the highest bid; it is also admitted that the contract was knocked down in his favour. But that was not final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We are unable to agree, The same word appearing in the same section of the same set of Rules must be given the same meaning unless there is anything to indicate the contrary. The full content of the "otherwise" is specified in Rule I. 1. It must be construed in the same sense in Rule II. 10. But that apart, this would, in our opinion, run counter to the policy of the Legislature which is that matters of such consequence to the State revenue cannot be dealt with arbitrarily and in the secrecy of an office. Whatever is done must be done either under the Rules or under a notification which would receive like publicity and have like force, and of which the people at large would have like notice. Arbitrary improvisation of an ad hoc procedure to meet the exigencies of a particular case is ruled out. The grant -of the contract to Thimmappa was therefore wrong. The next question is whether the appellant can complain of this by way of a writ. In our opinion, he could have done so in an ordinary case. The appellant is interested in these contracts and has a right under the laws of the State to receive the same treatment and be given the same chance as anybody else. Here we have Thimmappa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
