https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150397 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 An unpublished private offer could not lawfully displace an auction, and an ad hoc or secret grant to a rival bidder was invalid because the same rule language had to be read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. en-us Mon, 24 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Dec 2013 12:37:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150397 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 An unpublished private offer could not lawfully displace an auction, and an ad hoc or secret grant to a rival bidder was invalid because the same rule language had to be read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. Case-Laws Central Excise Mon, 24 May 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=150397