KEDIA CASTLE DELLEON INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questioned the legality, propriety and validity of the order/circular dated 23-5-2001 issued by the Excise Commissioner of the State of Chhaittsgarh (respondent No. 2), whereby the petitioner was asked to affix holograms/stickers on the sealed bottles of country liquor supplied by him on the same terms and conditions and at the same cost fixed by the respondents, on the ground that the said order is bad in law being contrary to the tender/license conditions. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 1-8-2003 whereby the representation of the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a public limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, under the certificate of incorporation. The petitioner Company is dealing and engaged in distilling/manufacturing liquor, spirit and other intoxicant liquids, which are distilled in its own distilleries. The Excise Commissioner of the erstwhile State of Madhya Pradesh had issued a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) on 7-3-2000 for bottling and supply of the country made spirit in sealed bottles on certain terms and conditions, which are extracted in Annexure F-2. In response to the said NIT, the petitioner quoted competitive rates for the license period commencing from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-200?. and the tender of the petitioner was accepted vide order dated 31st March, 2000. It was incorporated in the aforesaid acceptance letter of the respondent State that the license would be subject to statutory prescriptions contained in Madhya Pradesh (Chhattisgarh) Excise Act, 1915, and the statutory rules and other executive instructions in consonance with such statutory prescriptions read with conditions appended to the aforesaid NIT. Thereafter, the petitioner continued to supply the country liquor in sealed bottles. However, vide order/circular dated 23-5-2001, the respondent Excise Commissioner directed the petitioner through Collectors of Raipur, Durg, Rajnandgaon and Mahasamund Districts that the respondent State has decided that holograms/stickers would be affixed of a given description on the sealed bottles containing country liquor by the petitioner as a licensee in accordance with other stipulations contained in the said letter which also provided for supplies of such holograms/stickers at the rates mentioned therein of which the value/consideration would be payable through demand draft in the given excise heads. The impugned order is a colourable exercise of power through an executive fiat.

(3.) The further case of the petitioner is that he was not only taken aback due to the aforesaid communication, but also protested to such imposition of unwarranted pecuniary liability. The petitioner kept on making protests orally and for the first time sent a letter dated 20-11-2002, but the respondents did not make any express reply to the contents of the letter and ultimately, a legal notice was sent by the petitioner on 3-3-2003 to the respondents. In the meanwhile, the respondents again issued NIT on 5-3-2002 for the license period of 1 -4-2002 to 31-3-2004 for supply of country liquor through sealed bottles in supply areas as indicated in the said NIT. Again, the petitioner submitted tender, which was accepted, vide order dated 30th March, 2002. Even in this NIT, the executive instructions dated 23-5-2001 does not find any specific mention by way of amended terms and conditions, which were merely repetition of the terms and conditions of the NIT for the period from 1-4-2000 to 31-3-2002.