Statutory disposal of liquor privileges requires public procedures; a private, unnotified grant cannot replace the prescribed mode.

The Supreme Court stated that disposal of liquor privileges under the Mysore Excise Act, 1901 had to follow the prescribed statutory modes, including public notification and the required Government approval where tenders were used. An unpublished private offer could not lawfully displace an auction, and an ad hoc or secret grant to a rival bidder was invalid because the same rule language had to be read consistently throughout the scheme. The Court also noted that, although effective mandamus was refused because the excise year was nearly over, the appellant had succeeded on the legal merits and the impugned executive action was contrary to the Rules.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cancellation of the auction sale and the acceptance of a higher private tender could be sustained under the Mysore Excise Act, 1901 and the rules framed thereunder; (ii) whether the grant of the contract to the rival bidder without public notification or compliance with the prescribed modes of disposal was valid; (iii) whether the appellant was entitled to mandamus, notwithstanding that the contract period was nearly over.

Issue (i): Whether the cancellation of the auction sale and the acceptance of a higher private tender could be sustained under the Mysore Excise Act, 1901 and the rules framed thereunder.

Analysis: The statutory scheme regulated disposal of liquor privileges and did not leave the matter to unrestricted executive choice. Sale was to be by auction or by another method only if that method had been notified by Government. If tenders were to be called, the Rules required publication in the Gazette and prior Government approval. The cancellation of the auction on the basis of an unnotified private offer did not conform to the prescribed procedure, though the Commissioner could act for special reasons within the framework of the Rules.

Conclusion: The auction could not be displaced by an unpublished private arrangement, and the executive was bound to act within the statutory modes.

Issue (ii): Whether the grant of the contract to the rival bidder without public notification or compliance with the prescribed modes of disposal was valid.

Analysis: The same expression used in the rules had to bear the same meaning throughout the scheme. The word "otherwise" in the re-disposal rule had to be read consistently with the earlier rule and could not authorize an ad hoc, secret procedure. The Legislature had insisted on publicity and controlled discretion because the matter affected public revenue and required equal opportunity to compete. An informal grant behind the backs of interested persons offended the policy and structure of the Rules.

Conclusion: The grant of the contract to the rival bidder was invalid.

Issue (iii): Whether the appellant was entitled to mandamus, notwithstanding that the contract period was nearly over.

Analysis: On the merits the appellant had established that the procedure adopted was contrary to the Rules and that he had been denied the chance to compete fairly. However, by the time the matter reached final hearing, the excise year was almost at an end. A writ at that stage would have been ineffective, and the Court declined to issue a meaningless direction, while recognizing that the appellant had substantially succeeded in law.

Conclusion: No writ was issued because effective relief had become impossible, although the appellant succeeded on the legal merits.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed because the contract had substantially run its course, but the Court declared that the impugned executive action was contrary to the statutory rules and awarded costs to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute and rules prescribe specific, publicly notified modes for disposal of a State privilege, the executive cannot substitute an ad hoc or secret procedure, and the same expression in the scheme must be construed consistently to preserve the statutory limitation on discretion.

---