{"id":187844,"date":"2021-07-21T12:19:09","date_gmt":"2021-07-21T06:49:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=187844"},"modified":"2021-11-16T18:17:33","modified_gmt":"2021-11-16T12:47:33","slug":"delhi-high-court-allows-liquor-vendor-to-participate-in-bidding-process-assures-full-amount-return-in-case-of-discrepancy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/constitutional-law-news\/courts-news\/delhi-high-court-allows-liquor-vendor-to-participate-in-bidding-process-assures-full-amount-return-in-case-of-discrepancy\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi High Court allows liquor vendor to bid for licence, assures refund in case of discrepancy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
The Delhi High Court<\/a><\/strong> has permitted a retail liquor vendor to participate in the tender process and return of the earnest money deposit made by him, in case he is not satisfied with the retail price fixed by the Excise Commissioner.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench of Justice Vipin Sanghi and Justice Jasmeet Singh on Tuesday, while hearing a plea challenging the terms and conditions of tender notice floated by the Delhi Government on the basis of the New Excise Policy for 2021-22, granted time to the Delhi Government, among others, to file a detailed counter-affidavit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench observed: \u201cIt is stated by Dr Singhvi and Rahul Mehra, Senior Counsels for the respondent, on instructions, that so far as the petitioner is concerned, in case the petitioner is not satisfied with the fixation of MRP by the Commissioner and wishes to withdraw from the tendering process within three days of MRP being fixed, the respondents shall refund the entire earnest money deposit made by the petitioner in respect of bid.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The matter was listed before the Bench of Chief Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Jyoti Singh; however, since the same did not assemble for the day, it was listed before the Bench led by Justice Sanghi.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The petitioner was represented by Senior Counsels Rajiv Nayar and Sandeep Sethi, while the Delhi Government was represented by Senior Counsels Abhishek Manu Singhvi and Rahul Mehra.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Nayar informed the Court that the Delhi Government failed to furnish the criteria for the maximum retail price, which as per the terms of the tender, is to be subsequently fixed by the Excise Commissioner. This renders it uncertain for an interested bidder to estimate his profit margin and decide if it would be feasible to participate in the bidding process. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cYou must know the rules of the game before the tender has started,” he said.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Sethi submitted that the exercise of fixation of the retail price by the Excise Commissioner subsequent to the bidding process depends solely on the wisdom of the latter, who is not bound by the inputs given by the bidders. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI can\u2019t challenge his fixation\u2026The Court will say you entered into the bargain on the basis. When there was no criteria, you did not insist on any criteria and you subjected yourself to any criteria being fixed\u2026.You can\u2019t complain today,\u201d said Mr Sethi, in furtherance of his arguments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n