A. DAMODARAN & ANR. vs STATE OF KERALA & ORS. Supreme Court, 23-03-1976
| Judge | BEG,M. HAMEEDULLAH |
| Parties | A. DAMODARAN & ANR.STATE OF KERALA & ORS. |
| Docket Number | Appeal Civil 1464 of 1971 |
| Date | 23 March 1976 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6
PETITIONER:
A. DAMODARAN & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF KERALA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT23/03/1976
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
RAY, A.N. (CJ)
SINGH, JASWANT
CITATION:
1976 AIR 1533 1976 SCR (3) 780
1976 SCC (3) 61
CITATOR INFO :
R 1980 SC 680 (19)
R 1984 SC1326 (12)
ACT:
Kerala Abkari Act (1 of 1967), Ss. 18A and 28-‘Grantee’
who is-Right of Government to recover dues from persons who
were permitted to carry on business of selling liquor even
though no agreements were executed or licences granted.
Section 18A(1) of the Kerala Abkari Act, 1967, shows
that the exclusive or other privilege of selling liquor by
retail may be granted on payment of rental in consideration
of the grant. The amount of rental may be settled by
auction, negotiation or by any other method. Section 28
provides that all amounts due to the Government by any
grantee of a privilege may be recovered from the person
primarily liable to pay as if they were arrears of land
revenue.
HEADNOTE:
The appellants bid at auction sales of some toddy
shops. The conditions of the sales, notified in pursuance of
the statutory provisions, were: (a) It was incumbent upon
the bidder to pay immediately 10% of the amount due; (b) The
successful bidder had to deposit 30% of the amount payable,
on demand by the Assistant Commissioner, and to execute
agreements before getting the necessary licences; and (c) If
the contract could not be executed, the whole amount was to
be forfeited and the shop itself was to be resold. The
appellants deposited the necessary amounts on demand and
were allowed to start business even before agreements were
executed or licences were issued. But the appellants failed
to pay the balance due to the State. The amounts were sought
to be recovered under s. 28, and the proceedings were
challenged, but the High Court held against the appellants.
In appeal to this Court, the appellants contended that
as no agreement was executed between the appellants and the
Government in the manner prescribed by Art. 299 of the
Constitution, the appellants had not become the ‘grantees’
of any privilege and hence were not liable to pay the
amounts sought to be recovered
Dismissing the appeal,
To continue reading
Request your trial