K. N. GURUSWAMY versus THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS.

Citation: [1955] 1 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 24-05-1954 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

... 
--
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
K. N. GURUSWAMY 
v. 
THE STATE OF MYSORE AND OTHERS. 
lMEHR 
CHAND 
MAHAJAN 
C.J., 
MuKHERJEA, 
VIVIAN BosE, BHAGWATI and 
VENKATARAMA AYYAR JJ.] 
305 
Constitution 
of India 
Art. 226-Writ of mandamus-Mysore 
Excise Act, 1901, rules I (1 and 2), II(8 and 10)-Auction of liquor 
shops-Sale knocked down to highest bidder-Sale subiect to confir-
mRtion by Deputy Commissioner-Sale cancelled by Excise Commis-
sioner on a higher offer-Deputy Commissioner directed to accept the 
teqder-Tender accepted-Whether wrong-Whether a writ of 
mandamus should issue under the circumstances. 
~;1-
The appellant G and the fourth respondent T were rival liquor 
~ontractors for the sale of a liquor contract for the year 1953-54 
in the State of Mysore. The contract was auctioned by the Deputy 
Commissioner under the authority conferred upon him by the 
Mysore Excise Act, 
1901. The appellant's bid was 
the highest 
and the contract was knocked down in his favour subject to formal 
confirmation by the Deputy Commissioner. The fourth respondent 
was present at the auction but did not bid. lnitead of that he went 
direct to the Excise Commissioner and made a higher offer. 
The 
Excise Commissioner cancelled the sale in favour of G and direct-
,, 
ed the Deputy Commissioner to take action under rule 11.10. The 
latter accepted T's tender. 
The appellant's application for a writ 
of mandamus was dismissed by the High Court but he was gr;lntcd 
a certificate under article 133( 1 Y of the Constitution. 
Held, (i) that the appcllapt's prayer for a writ of mandamu' 
col)ld not he gr;mted as 
the 
Excise 
Commissioner exercised his 
authority (though a little irregularly because the matter did not 
reach him through the proper channel) and the cancellation of sale 
by him under the circumstances was proper. 
• 
(ii) The subsequent action 
of the 
Deputy Commissioner in 
.-- .. 
grqnting the contract to T was wrong because th~ arbitrary impro.-
visation of an ad hoc procedure to meet the exigencies of a parti-
cular case adopted in the secrecy of an officc cannot be accepted. 
(iii) What the Legislature has insisted on is that wherever 
f:, 
there is a departure from the methods of auction and tender provid, 
ed for in the Rules, the departure must be 
sanctioned by Govern-
ment and must be "notified". The matter cannot be left to the 
arbitrary discretion pf some lesser authority . 
..__ 
(iv) The relief of a writ prayed for by the appellant to can-
-
eel the contract given to T could not be granted in the present 
case as b:Jrcly a fortnight was left for the contract to expire and the 
gr;int ot a writ would therefore be ineffective and meaningless. 
• 
• 
1954 
K. N. Gunuritomij 
•• 
W:-111 Stau of 
Mysor1 and 
Othlrs. 
• 
• 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1955] 
The relevant sections of the Mysore Excise Act and the rules 
Jnade thereunder arc given in the judgment. 
State of Assam v. Keshab Prasad Singh and Others ([1953] S.C.R . 
865) a.nd Con1n1issio11er of 
Polic~, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhan# 
(f1952J S.C.R. 135) referred to. 
CIVIL 
APPELLATE 
JuRISDICTION : 
Civil 
Appeal 
No. 212 of 1953. 
Under article 133(1) 
of the Constitution of India 
against the Judgment and Order dated the 
10th July, 
1953, of the Mysore High Court in Civil Petition No. 
116 of 1953. 
M. C. Setalvad, AttOrn(y-General for India, 
(H. f. 
Umrigar 
and 
Rajinder Narain, with him) 
for 
the 
appellant. 
·~
Nitoor Srinivasa Rao, 
Advocate-General of Mysore, 
(R. Ganapatlzy.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 
th~ year 1953-54 in the 
State of Mysore . 
The appella11t, Guruswamy, and ·the. fourth respond-
ent, Thimmappa, are rival liquor c011tractors. The con-
tract 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 'inonth was the. highest, so the contract was knocked 
dowp in his favour subject to formal confirmation by· 
the Deputy Commissioner. On the same day the appel-
lant deposited Rs. 1,99,618-12-0. 
· 
· 
The fourth respondent, Thimmappa, was present at 
the auction but did not hid. Instead of that he went 
direct to the Excise 
Commissioner behind the 
appel-
lant's back and made an offer of Rs. 1,85,000. 
On 11th M

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.