Disposed

Tapan Kumar Saha v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Jharkhand HC11 Nov 2019WPC/3912/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-refund of earnest money deposit by unsuccessful bidders in a liquor shop allotment. The Court directed the authority to decide the pending application within four weeks based on Rule 2018.

What did the court decide?

Directed the authority to decide on the pending application for refund of earnest money deposit within four weeks.

Tapan Kumar Saha Vs the State of Jharkhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 3912 of 2019

¶2

----

¶3

Tapan Kumar Saha … … Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State of Jharkhand through the Principal Secretary, Department of Excise & Prohibition, Ranchi

¶6

Commissioner of Excise & Prohibition, Ranchi

¶7

Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Pakur

¶8

Superintendent of Excise, Pakur … … Respondents

¶9

----

¶10

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶11

---- For the Petitioner : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate Ms. Shilpi John, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Pallav, G.A.-IV Mr. Parth Jalan, A.C. to G.A.-IV

¶12

Order No. 04 : Dated 11^th November, 2019

¶13

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder direction has been sought for upon the respondents to forthwith refund the amount of Earnest Money Deposit as a condition for participating in bid for allotment of Retail Excise Shop in terms of the gazette notification dated 25.12.2018 and in terms of the sale notification as contained in Annexure-2 and Annexure-3 notice issued by the Excise Department dated 22.02.2019 whereby and whereunder, specific condition has been stipulated for refund of earnest money in case the bidder will be found unsuccessful in the bid.

¶14

It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the notice inviting bid, participation has been made for consideration of its candidature for settlement of liquor shop. The petitioner has submitted the application form by submitting all the relevant documents as also the earnest money deposit as required. The committee has considered the candidature of the petitioner but the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected declaring as unsuccessful

¶15

applicant. The petitioner thereafter has made an application for refund of earnest money in view of the condition stipulated under Chapter-IV Sub Clause-2 of Clause 23 of the notification dated 25.12.2018, which is Jharkhand Excise Rule pertaining to Settlement and Management of Shops for retail outlet of liquor but no decision has been taken. The grievance of the petitioner is that when the petitioner has been declared unsuccessful in view of the condition stipulated under Rule 2018 as also the notice inviting application under Annexure-2 and notice as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner is to be refunded back without any rhyme and reason as per the rules and as per condition stipulated in the notice inviting bid, therefore the instant writ petition.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted that since the rule itself provides for refund of the earnest money deposit in case the applicant is declared to be unsuccessful and since the petitioner has already made representation before the authority for claiming the said amount, therefore the writ petition may be disposed of at this stage.

¶17

Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the provision as provided under Rule 2018 which provides a condition with respect to the action to be taken by the authority regarding earnest money deposit in case of unsuccessful application it is to be refunded back as early as possible after the closure of the settlement process but so far as it relates to successful applicant, the earnest money deposit shall be adjusted against the amount of security deposit. The notice inviting application has been issued as under Annexure-2 likewise a further notice has been issued under Annexure-3 stipulating the said condition under Chapter-

¶18

IV Sub Clause-2 of Clause 23 of the Rule 2018. The petitioner after being unsuccessful has made application for refund of the earnest money deposit under Annexure-9 and 9/1 annexed to the writ petition by referring the provision of Clause 23 Sub Clause-II of Chapter-IV of Rule 2018 but as yet no decision has been taken therefore it would be appropriate at this juncture to direct the authority to take a decision upon the pending representation of the petitioner under Annexure-9 and 9/1 taking into consideration the provision of Sub Clause-2 of Clause 23 of Chapter-IV of Rule 2018 within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶19

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶21

Birendra/

Tapan Kumar Saha v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tapan Kumar Saha v. the State of Jharkhand through the Pr Secretary Deptt of Excise and Prohibition

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhay Shankar Prasad Vs Union of India through the Director General

Central Coalfields Limited through Its Project Officer Sri Ajay Kumar B Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Miss Shivangi Tiwari And Anr. Represented Through Their Mohter Mrs Gayatri Tiwary Vs Education

Manoj Kumar Rajhans Vs the Deoghar Municipality through Its Town Commissioner

Ms Usha Martin Limited Through Its President Mining Division Sri Karun Kant Dave Vs Mines And Geological Survey

Kunjlal Mistry Vs the State of Jharkhand