P. BHOOMA REDDY versus STATE OF MYSORE & ORS.

Citation: [1969] 3 S.C.R. 14 · Decided: 05-12-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

P. BHOOMA REDDY 
v. 
STATE OF MYSORE & ORS. 
December 5, 1968 
[S. M. SIKRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. liEGDE, JJ.] 
My.sore Excise (Disposal of Privl'kges of Retail Vend of Liquors) 
Ruks, 1967, rr. 12, 17(2)(4) and 19(1)(3) and (4)-Liquor shops in 
more than one tehsU-Whether r. 19(1), (3) and (4) applicable-'At 
once' meaning of-Whether Divisional Commissioner can revise his own 
order-R. 12 Scope of-R. 17(4), scope of-When next highest bid can 
be accepted. 
The appellant was the highest bidder for the exclusive privilege of 
retail vend of toddy and arrack for·the year 1968-69, in a 
group 
of 
1168 shops situated in 19 tehsils iri the districts of Raichur and Gulbarga, 
He lllllde the deposits of money required under rr. 7(f) and 10 of the 
Mysore Excise (Disposal of Privileges of Retail Vend of Liquors) Rules, 
1967 made under s. 71 of the Mysore Excise Act, 196S. The highest bid 
of the appellant was accepted and confirmed by the Divisional Commis-
sioner of Gulbarga under r. 17(1) on June 4, 1968. Thereafter, the 
appellant made further deposits required by rr. 17(S) and 19(2). 
Jn 
all he deposited about Rs. 40 lakhs by June IS. On June 18 he applied 
to the Divisional Commissioner for the issue-licence. He however, did not 
comp!) with r. 19(1) and (3) which required that a statement of immov-
able eroperties should be furnished and that he should furnish 
security 
or sureties, respectively. The Divisional Commissioner Gulbarga issued a 
notice to the appellant to show cause why the sale should not be cancelled 
and the deposits already made forfeited under r. 20(2). The appellant 
prayed for two months' time, .for compliance with the requirements of 
r-' 19~ but the Divisional Commissioner rejected the application and can-
celled the sale. He did not pass any order forfeiting the deposits. 
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court for quashing the 
order and under directions of the Court deposited another Rs. SO lakhs. 
The 4th respondent, who was the next highest bidder applied to be made 
a party to the petition and contended that the. appellant was a benamidar 
for other persons and so acceptance of his tender was forbidden by r. 12. 
The Hi~h Court dismissed the 
writ petition holding 
( 1) 
that the 
_ appellant did not comply with the mandatory requirements of r. 19 · in 
that he did not furnish the statements and apply 'at once' for licences 
,as required by r. 19(1); (2) the appellant was a benamidar; and (3) 
the authorities should consider the advISability of accepting the bid of the 
4th respondent. On the very next day after the judgment of the Hl~h 
Court, the respondent.State issued licences in respect of 1168 shops to 
the 4th respondent. 
In appeal to this Court. 
HELD : The licences issued to the 4th respondent should be cancelled 
and a writ of mandamus should issue for the grant of licences to the 
appellant. [26 A] 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B 
B 
c 
I 
D 
.G 
BHOOMA REDDY V, MYSORE 
15 
(l)(a) The opening part of r. 19(4) requires the purchaser to furnish 
to 'the tehsildar' the location of shops and the boundaries of the shop 
sites. that is to the tahsildar within whose tehsil lhe shops are situated. 
U the shops arc situated in more than one lehsil, the details can be fur· 
Dished to the several tahsildars, but in such a case it is not possible 
to give effect to the last part oil the sub-rule and also to the provisions of 
sub-rr. (3) and (4). The statement of immovable properties under the 
last part of sub-r. (l) can be furnished to only one tahsildar so that he 
can peruse the same; and on such perusal or on independent inquiry 
ascertain under .sub-r. (3) whether or not 
purchaser is of doubtful 
solvency and satisfy himself under sub-r. ( 4) whether or not the value of 
the immovable property tendered as security is adequate, Sub-rr. (3) 
and ( 4) do not contemplate findings by more. than one tahsildar nor do 
they provide any machinery for resolving the conflict of opinion, if any, 
betw00.11 two or more tahsildars. The last part of sub-r. (I) and suf>.rr. 
( 3) ud l 4) do not apply where the shops are situated in two or more 
tahsils. 
Consequently, those provisions were not attracted to the sale in 
the ~- "8se and the appellant was not required to comply with those 
provisio111. (22 El 
(bl In the absence of an independent enquiry under sub-r. (3), the 
appellant could not be regarded as a person· of doubtful solvency. 
(c) Under the Mysore Excise Licences (Genera

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