^ -•r^^ 5^^a .y IN THE HISH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR WPJT PETITION No. -4-2--2. ,.'2001. (WRIT PETITION UBDER ARTICLE 22S/227 OF THE CQNSTITUTION ON IHDIA FOR ISSUAKCE OF WRIT/ ORDER / DIRECTION ETC. ) PETITIOBERL P.ESPONDENTS: KESHAR SINGK S/0 LATE LAL SINGH aged about 26 years., Partner- M/'s paramount Traders, R/0 Village- Bawaria Kala, Distt. Bhopal (MP). .//Versus// 1. STATE OF CHHATTISGAEH, Through Secretary, Commeroial Tax Department (Excise), G-ovt. of Chhattisgarh. 2. THE COHMISSIONER (EXCISE) Government of CS'ihs.ttisgarh P.AIPUR. 3. THE CQLLECTOR(EXCISE) Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon. HRIT PETITION UNDBE ARTICLE 226/227 OF TKE CONSTITUTION ON INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OE WRIT,/ ORDER /•' DIRECTION ETC. Xi-HC-22 •L t ^a "qi^id1!, @nl<^<!s, fsicii^y ^J -ft_^M, -2^2 ^ ^7- ri-'')'i o^<-^^u,, ^^c^.^d ^^..::A^£I........^^ ^nK^^'^^'^-^^L'^'J 3Tr^T«f>i 1 5?^! | i*i-!j+ 'SfSV | an^T's^nwait?! 28a3.0l 'H^'h^'^i^'^'T ~':' I-'r'E'" 'nl'iirl'fl-l 'qrq??f'? 'S^'st Tfsnsre '^srfiOTSlR^T ^^.___^T]_LfJ^ Stari Alok Aradtie learne^ counsel for the petitioner. Shrl N.K.Shukla, Dy»&.G| for ttie State/respondents. Heard. The niatter coacerns salfe of liquor shops. There arej four groups. Tbe petitioner contested it^ an oral bid and the bid amount of the w^i-t petitioner /7i petitiott <'{, preasr'tsd o"—-<<'! w^s^ )<?*<$f^£ was Rs.7,60,OSB°00/- whictt tyl as the big Ttae authority was not satisjfied and sealed tenders were called In the sealed tenders also Ttwpstition chscf-ed It. dre-wo-us. clulys'amifed. ; i^-r^^^y d"!^U^'^^' fT J ^^ ^^ -^ ^^^<tes^s was the-highest inasmuch a^ f^vv^^- --r^. ^7- the petitioner has offered j Rs.8,21,11.000/-. The cenijetent. , »^>.^^^ authority l«a-±eagalri"5ib flut -teh aaction tomorrow i«e«29.3.1 It may be stated that wlth4|n a period a£ ^ • •• j - . . • • . . •" ^- fifteen days, in the instarit case from 22nd of Mareh 2001, the coi^petextt au'tbority is entitled to take a final decision in tbe .-z- 2001. sn^rTR^ (^f^ip) 3D^[^ K;-)i°b 3H^I st>*li+^lfe •sn^!TRIIW^s mafcter. Sbri Aradhet, lei: the petitioner, Stfcml.ts i£ there is any bideter wh^ anlowat of Rs.8,21,11.000/-| claim aad ithe eonpetent the contract with such that . . , , prayer/has-beea nade is respeet of group-4 may be so tbat i-n ttas eveat of being not able -bo sueceed) have an opportgnity to groups. Tfaougfa At is accept the highest bid financially, I am afraid direetion as to which bid| be first kn©clced<3bwn pcoper. Henee I am wsk. specifXc cU.rection. viedr that in such transacl be xnterested to earn rnor^ would certaialy go £ac th^ Aradhe states that siace arrlt petlt-toner is the if BO nore higber bxd is the bid of the writ petltt I aan of tbe view that the] accepted. Thougb I aa no( ^l*(I<vt^Tl T^FRTf "^'is^ <R^R ^T sipgii afl^i i4triaed counsel for tlliat la tlte next auction bids higher tbaa tfee be has ao furtber aijtthoEity inay fi-aalise hi.4lta.er bidder. Aaother tlliat t'ne auction ia luaoclced dawa flrst writ petAtioner in Group-4 he raay in ths remataing to say that fco benefit the State give any specific or aact-lon should vassy. may not be i<»clinedto issue a ', I ara of the t-ton the state would ior^ noney and, tberefore, itigl»stbid. Mr. t the bid of ths fei^hest at ttie moineRt. ^vailaible in the re-auction -oner shouldbe aecepfced. highest bid shaald be fc iBclined to issue a tfce cofctest cort'ect woUd to wltfesfa V Howeyer GRPRJ—PS/311—1/2001—50,000. H-HC-22 "sii^g^; Rl-ti.* sv^S St**11ctt W ^^^S^f^^?-3"^^ :\ • 'sss •^Wviil,xssesg^t, WRWWISW dtr'ection, I are Qf tbe vieii should be a't laberty to r eq autfaority "tbat the bid in i may be-knocked jScsws firsf, cqaipeteBt aiiitborlty to exan it deens fl.'t in tbe interes Tbe petition 1s dis c»c. today 'bWfflA-f ilWcffl'? ft^t^?5K ^T <nP<i*i oll^l that the peti.tioner luest the competent |espeet of Groap-4 iaiad it is fer the tne and decide as t ®fthe State exctieqaer posed of• Sd/- Chief Justice