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.