IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5505 of 2009 MANISH KUMAR, S/O KAPILDEO PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF TOP, P.S. DANIAMA, DISTRICT- PATNA. -PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR, 2. THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, BIHAR OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA, 3. THE EXCISE COMMISSIONER, BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, PATNA. -RESPONDENTS ******* For the Petitioner : Mr. Ram Badan Mahto For the Respondents: M/s Vikas Kumar, AC to Adv.General 3 20.08.2009 Heard Mr. Ram Badan Mahto, for the petitioner, and Mr. Vikas Kumar, for the respondents. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has prayed for issuance of a writ for setting aside the short term tender notice for grant of exclusive privilege for manufacture of country liquor and supply to the State Beverage Corporation published vide letter no.594 dated 25th February, 2009. It has been specifically indicated in the writ petition that notice must be held to be violative of Section 22D of the Excise Act requiring more than one grantee in a Zone of supply and for 2 declaring the condition 2 (Kha) and 2(Ga) of the tender notice prescribing eligibility condition of three years experience in manufacturing country liquor and supply to the State Beverage Corporation and annual turn over of not less than three crores in excise trade, as discriminatory and unfair. It has further been asserted in the writ petition that tenders had not been opened at 4.00 P.M. on 16th March, 2009 by the Excise Commissioner, Bihar, in presence of the tenderers and hence all the offers have become infructuous necessitating fresh tender. In support of the writ petition, it has been specifically pleaded that there is violation of Section 22D and further that condition 2(Kha) and 2(Ga) of the tender notice are arbitrary. So far as Section 22D is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 22D specifically envisages that there may be more than one grantee in every zone whereas the present tender notice declares only one grantee per zone. Section 22D (1), relevant for considering the aforesaid contention, is extracted herein below: “22D-Grant of exclusive/special privilege for bottling/sacheting and wholesale supply of country liquor:- (1) The State Government may grant to any person/persons on such conditions and for such terms and conditions and for such period as it may think fit, the exclusive/special privilege for supplying country liquor, on wholesale basis, after sacheting/bottling it. 3 There may be more than one grantee in a zone of Supply.” The counsel has emphasized on the expression “there may be more than one grantee in a zone of supply”. We do not think this mandates that in every zone there should be more than one shop. This enabling provision authorizes the State Government to prescribe more than one grantee for every zone. But it cannot be said that there has been any violation of law in that there can be one grantee in respect of each zone (38 in number). The first contention is, therefore, of no help to the petitioner. So far as the second contention is concerned, the counsel has contended that condition 2(Kha) and 2(Ga) of the tender notice are arbitrary and have been incorporated to facilitate the previous grantees. Almost similar contention was raised in CWJC no. 2952 of 2009 where the Division Bench has for good reasons held that it was not proper to set aside these tender conditions. Therefore, in view of the earlier Division Bench decision there is no scope for taking a different view in the matter. The third contention is to the effect that as per the notice the tender should have been opened at 4.00 P.M. 4 on 16th March, 2009 and that having not been done the tender notice has become infructuous. In this context it has to be noticed that the petitioner himself never submitted any tender and has failed to show how he was prejudiced by the fact that the tenders had not been opened on 16th March, 2009. Therefore, this contention is also not acceptable. In course of hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the provisions contained in Rule 218 had not been followed inasmuch as the tender notice had not been issued three months prior to the commencement of the period of settlement. It is to be noticed that such contention was never raised in the writ petition. Moreover, the petitioner is unable to show how the petitioner is prejudiced because of non-publication of tender notice three months prior to the commencement of the period of settlement. It is also to be noticed that, in the meantime, the settlement has been effected in favour of all the grantees of 38 zones and none of them has been impleaded as respondents. Therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to quash the tender notice which would have the effect of nullifying 5 the selection of one grantee in every zone. In absence of those persons, it will not be proper to express any opinion into that aspect. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly. (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) AAhmad