Full Judgment
D. S. Sinha, J.
1. Heard Sri A. P. Shahi, holding brief of Sri R. N. Singh,learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioners, and Sri Vinay Malviya. learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.
2. At an auction for privilege to sell liquor and Bhang, held on 26th March, 1984, the petitioners were the highest bidders. Their bid was for Rs. 6,01,000. It appears, the bids of the petitioners did not attain finality, and there was re-auction on 4th April, 1984 wherein the highest bid was for Rs. 5,75,000. The authorities held this bid to be Inadequate. This led to third auction, which was held on 6th April, 1984. In the third auction, the highest bid offered was for a sum of Rs. 4,05,000. It was accepted. Obviously, there is a difference of Rs. 1,96,000 between the bid of the petitioners and the bid offered at the third auction on 6th April, 1984 and accepted. This difference was considered to be a loss to the State, and is sought to be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. The petitioners have approached this Court and pray that the respondents may be prohibited from recovering the said amount as arrears of land revenue.
3. Contention of Sri Shahi, in the forefront, is that the money sought to be recovered from the petitioners cannot be realised as arrears of land revenue inasmuch as neither there is any statutory provision empowering the State to recover the amount in question as arrears of land revenue nor is there any agreement between the petitioners and the State providing for recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. According to Sri Shahi, the only course available to the State was to file a civil suit as is contemplated under Rule 180 of the Rules under the U. P. Excise Act. 1910.
4. The stand taken in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is that the amount in question can be recovered from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue under the provisions of the U. P. Excise (First Amendment) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called 'the Rules').
5. Attention of the Court is drawn to sub-rule (11) of Rule 6 of the Rules. It provides that all monetary losses resulting from re-auction or alternative arrangement or from the licence remaining unsold for want of bidders shall be recoverable from the original auction-purchaser as arrears of land revenue.
6. Rule 1 of the Rules appoints the date of the publication of the Rules in the official Gazette as the date from which the Rules come into force. Indisputably, the Rules were published in the Official Gazette on 5th May, 1984. a date much later than 6th April, 1984, the date on which the cause of action for realisation of the money in question accrued. It cannot be gainsaid that the Rules are prospective, and not retrospective.
7. Thus, reliance upon the provision of sub-rule (11) of Rule 6 of the Rules is misplaced. It is no body's case that there was an agreement between the petitioners and the State providing for realisation of the money in question as arrears of land revenue. No other provision, statutory or otherwise. empowering the State to realise the money in question as arrears of land revenue has been brought to the notice of the Court by learned Standing Counsel. This being the situation, in the opinion of the Court, the money in question cannot be realised from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue.
8. Sri Shahi appearing for the petitioners rightly submits that the only recourse open to the State was to file a civil suit as provided in Rule 180 of the Rules under the U. P. Excise Act if the amount in question could legally be deemed to have become recoverable from the petitioners.
9. In the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents are forbidden from realising the amount in question from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue.
10. There is no order as to costs.