IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.17105 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.9.2010 Niranjan Singh. -----Petitioner. Vs. State of Haryana & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present:- Mr. R.S. Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner. --- ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This petition seeks direction for declaring Haryana Liquor Licence Rules, 1970 (for short, “the Rules”) and Liquor Licence Policy, 2009-10 to be ultra vires the Punjab Excise Act, 1914, as applicable to Haryana. Further prayer is to quash auction proceedings and recovery notice dated 25.4.2009 and another undated recovery notice left at the house of the petitioner on 11.9.2010. There is also prayer for refund of Rs.29,79,500/- with interest @ 12%. 2. Case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of Tender Notice dated 26.2.2009 for allotment of liquor vends, the CWP No.17105 of 2010 petitioner submitted tenders for six vends on 21.3.2009. The said vends were allotted to the petitioner on 23.3.2009. However, the petitioner sought to withdraw from the vends by letter dated 6.4.2009. The said request was not accepted and the petitioner was asked to deposit the security amount, failing which the licence was to be cancelled. Thereafter, allotment of liquor vends was cancelled for non-payment of security amount and earnest money was forfeited. 3. In support of challenge to the recovery proceedings and the statutory provisions, submission on behalf of the petitioner is that a provision identical to proviso to Section 44 of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 (for short, “the Act”) envisaging permission to allow surrender for sufficient cause having not been incorporated in the policy, the policy itself was illegal and so were the Rules. Further submission is that under Section 36-A of the Act, liquor vends should be divided into groups and should not be allotted individually. As per Rule 19 of the Rules, where the increase in bid was above 35% of the reserve price, Presiding Officer could demand 1/3rd of the total bid money in cash, as security to check speculative bidding. This having not been followed, allotment of vends in favour of the petitioner was void and of no consequence. The petitioner could not, thus, be visited with statutory liability for the vends. 4. We are unable to accept the submission. 2 CWP No.17105 of 2010 5. The allotment of the liquor vends was in March, 2009 and letter of withdrawal was sent by the petitioner in April, 2009, which was never accepted. The cause of action, thus, accrued to the petitioner at that time. Having allowed the entire period of one year to go, the petitioner could not be allowed to challenge rejection of prayer for surrender at this stage. As regards the plea of rules and policy being ultra vires, we are unable to find any merit therein. Mere fact that proviso to Section 44 of the Act was not incorporated in the policy, did not make the policy bad. The statutory provisions remained unaffected. In fact, the policy clearly states:- “All licences, whether for wholesale or for retail sale, shall be granted subject to the provisions of the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and the Rules/Regulations/ Instructions/Policies framed thereunder from time to time as applicable to the State of Haryana.” 6. There is also no violation of Section 36A or Rule 19. As regards identification of groups of vends, it is not shown how the said provision has been violated so as to affect the right of the petitioner. As regards Rule 19, it is not the case of the petitioner that his bids were speculative. This being the position, grievance cannot made by the petitioner that he should have been required to give the bid money in cash or by bank draft as per Rule 19 of the Rules. 3 CWP No.17105 of 2010 7. We, thus, do not find any merit in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE September 22, 2010 ( AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ) ashwani JUDGE 4