1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.434 OF 2010 Teegalla Venkatesh s/o Satyanna Venkatesh , Age : 29 years, Occ. Business, r/o Subhash Nagar, Dharmabad, district Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra [through Excise Department] Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Collector, State Excise, Old Custom House, Mumbai 3. The Collector, Nanded, district Nanded 4. The Tahsildar, Dharmabad, district Nanded 5. Kanakdurg Toddy Company Nanded Through Raja Gaud s/o Vitha Gaud, Age : 45 yrs., Occu. Business, Tq. Biloli, District Nanded 6. Jai Bhavani Toddy Company Degloor, Through Rajshekhar Gaud s/o Kasha Gaud, Age : 40 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o Vishnunagar, Nanded 2 7. Jai Bhavani Toddy Company Dharmabad Through Tirupati Gaud s/o Linga Gaud, Age :44 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o V.I.P. Road, New Mondha, Nanded 8. Santosh Gaud s/o Satyanarayan Gaud, Age : 45 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o Bhokar, Tq. Bhokar, District Nanded 9. Bura s/o Rama Gaud, Age : 40 yrs., Occu. Business, R/o Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr A.K. Tiwari, Advocate holding for Mrs N.N. Gangwal (Jain) for the petitioner; Mr S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 4; Mr P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate with Mr Amol Gandhi for respondents no.5 to 9. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 14th July, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V. HARDAS, J.) Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 3 2. This petition takes exception to an advertisement dated 5.1.2010 which came to be published on 8.1.2010 in the local newspapers inviting bids in respect of auction of toddy shops. The auction of the toddy shops was held in respect of the Nanded District. The principal challenge in the petition is that by virtue of the Circular issued by the Commissioner, State Excise, Maharashtra State, Mumbai, the toddy shops are allotted as per the number of trees in existence in a particular area. One shop is allotted for every 500 trees. Te challenge to the auction notice is that in some areas there are virtually no trees, yet several shops have been allotted and in certain areas there are more trees, yet lesser number of shops are allotted. It is, therefore, urged that allotment of the shops vis- a-vis existence of the trees is disproportionate. 3. On notice of this petition being issued to the respondents, respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, the of the circular as well as the fact that in certain areas no trees are existing has not been denied. Reliance is sought to be placed by the respondents on certain provisions of the Manual which entitles the allotment of the shops where there are no trees but where transportation of toddy by other licence holders is possible. According to us, it is not clear as to whether the provisions of the manual would prevail over the circular which has been issued, which is based on the Government policy. In any event, the period of the licence in respect of the auctioning of the shops was from 4 21.1.2010 to 31.8.2010 and the said period is virtually coming to an end. According to us, revival of the auction notice would not serve the purpose as the period is coming to an end. 4. We accordingly quash the tender notice/auction notice which is impugned in the present petition and direct the respondents to reissue the tender notice/auction notice afresh in accordance with law. If possible, the tender notice should disclose the number of trees which are available in a particular area and the number of shops allotted thereto as well as the provision on which reliance is placed by the respondents in allotting the shops where there are no trees. 5. In the result, therefore, we allow this petition and quash and set aside the tender/auction notice impugned in the present petition. 6. Amount deposited by the petitioner as per the orders of this Court be refunded to the petitioner along with the accrued interest. 7. Rule is thus made absolute on the above terms with the directions as stated above. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. 8. Copy of this judgment authenticated by Sheristedar of this Court be provided to the learned A.G.P. to act upon. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) 5 amj/wp434.10