Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SIR SHADILAL DISTILLERY & CHEMICALS WORKS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 26/11/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
The admitted position is that the Commissioner had
invited tenders on December 21, 1996 for supply of country
made liquor in various districts of U.P. for the year 1996-
97. Pursuant thereto, parties had submitted there tenders.
The commissioner by his proceedings dated February 27, 1996
allotted to the Co-operative Distillery Co, Ltd., the third
respondent, the Districts of Saharanpur and Haridwar, He,
however, revoked the same by his proceedings dated March 27,
1996 and allotted the district of Haridwar to the appellant.
Consequently, the third respondent filed writ petition
challenging the cancellation and reallotment to the
appellant of Haridwar District. the High Court in the
impugned order has directed in the operative part as under:
"In the result, the writ petition
is allowed and orders dated
26.3.1996 and 27.3.1996 contained
in Annexures 6 and 6-A to the writ
petition so far as it pertains to
the allotment of district Haridwar
to respondent No.3 are quashed. A
mandamus is also issued commanding
the respondents 1 and 2 to restore
the position as it was obtained on
27.2.1996 and the opp. parties are
also restrained from interfering in
the rights of the petitioners to
make supply to the district
Haridwar."
Calling this order in question, the present appeal has
been filed.
Clause 18(c) of the Tender Conditions indicated that
"[1]f all the aforesaid conditions are fulfilled the
distillery situated in the district would be given
preference in respect of supplies to the same. If there are
two distilleries situated in the same district and if there
is no material difference in the rates quoted by the said
two distilleries, the distillery, which was granted the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
district earlier, shall be given preference."
It is an admitted position that prior to bifurcation of
districts saharanpur and Haridwar, Haridwar was part of
Saharanpur. It is also an admitted position that on the
earlier occasion, the third respondent was granted licence
for Saharanpur and Haridwar, The question remains: whether
the factory of the third respondent is situated in Haridwar
district? It is an admitted position that the third
respondent’s factory is not situated in Haridwar district.
It is also an admitted position that the respondent No.3 had
not executed the agreement for the purpose of issuance of
the licence. As a result, no licence had been issued as on
date.
On these facts, the question arises: whether the
allotment to the third respondent is correct in law? We need
not express any opinion on the facts since, admittedly, the
Government did not issue any notice respondent on February
27, 1996 and the third respondent had no opportunity to have
his say in that behalf.
Under these circumstances, the direction issued by the
High Court stands set aside. The Government is directed to
issue notice to the third respondent as well as the
appellant, consider their objections and pass appropriate
speaking in that behalf for grant or refusal of licence in
respect of district of Haridwar in accordance with the Rules
to the 3rd Respondent.
The appeal is according allowed. The Government is
directed to issued the notice and complete the exercise
within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of
this order. Till then status quo as on today shall continue.