THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19252 OF 2010 DATED 6TH AUGUST, 2010 BETWEEN Chintapalli Srinivas … Petitioner And Deputy Commissioner, Prohibition and Excise, Kakinada, East Godavari District. And Others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.19252 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner assails the order dated 11.06.2010 passed by the District Collector, East Godavari District, seeking to recover a sum of Rs.28,51,117/- from the petitioner on the ground that the same was the resultant loss owing to the cancellation of the tender of the petitioner, who was the highest bidder for lease of the A-4 liquor shop notified at Sl.No.108 of the Gazette Notification pertaining to Komarajulanka Village, East Godavari District, for the excise years 2010-12. The petitioner was declared the highest bidder in respect of the subject shop at a bid value of Rs.70,88,888/-. However, he failed to comply with the tender conditions and his bid was cancelled. The leasehold rights in respect of the shop were given to the second highest bidder at the bid value of Rs.41,22,777/-. Accordingly, the loss to the Government was worked out at Rs.29,66,117/- and after deducing the EMD amount of the petitioner, the balance quantified at Rs.28,51,117/- was sought to be recovered from the petitioner under the impugned proceedings. Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the petitioner, placed reliance on the Judgment of this Court in MANDELA NAGASURYA RANGA RAO v. THE EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, WEST GODAVARI AT ELURU[1] wherein this Court, while dealing with Rule 22 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise (Lease of Right to sell Arrack in Retail) Rules, 1988 in respect of the resultant loss which could be recovered from the defaulter, held that notice had to be given to such defaulter and denial of opportunity before fixation of resultant loss would vitiate the proposed recovery. The learned Judge was of the opinion that though there was no specific provision in the Rules with regard to granting of opportunity to the defaulter, as such an order imposes a financial liability upon him which could be recovered as arrears of land revenue, it would be necessary to give him an opportunity at least under Section 52 of the Andhra Pradesh Revenue Recovery Act, 1864. For reasons alike, I am of the opinion that prior to fixing the liability upon the petitioner in respect of the resultant loss owing to the cancellation of his bid, he should have been given an opportunity of hearing. The learned Government Pleader for Excise submitted that the petitioner was yet to be granted a licence and therefore could not seek parity with the petitioner in the above referred case, who was already granted a licence. This argument does not hold water. It is to be seen that owing to the exercise undertaken behind the back of the petitioner, he is sought to be mulcted with financial liability for a substantial sum. The principles of natural justice require that the petitioner be given an opportunity to put forth his case. This exercise is necessary irrespective of whether the petitioner has already been granted a licence or whether he was still at the threshold when he committed the default. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed at the stage of admission setting aside the proceeding dated 11.06.2010. This shall however not preclude the respondent authorities from initiating action afresh after following the due procedure as indicated supra. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 6TH AUGUST, 2010 VGSR [1] 1997 (2) ALT 748