THOMAS Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are by the arrack traders. In the abkari auctions of the years 1980-81 and 1981-82, they willingly participated. Their bids were accepted. Shops were opened. The trade was started. Later came the rub. According to the traders, they did not have as copious a supply of arrack for distribution among their patrons, (of course, for money). The resultant loss, or diminution in profits, is to be compensated by the Government who defaulted delivery of the indented quantity of arrack, - they demanded. The Government did not budge. It pressed for payment of the kits. The demand, not hounoured, was soon followed by the coercive process of revenue recovery. (That process is available under the relevant Act for realisation of abkari dues). It became too hot for the traders. They sought to resist it with the aid of the Code and orders of the Court. Interim injunction was so obtained in suits for permanent injunctions instituted on payment of nominal court fee. Ultimately, the suits ended in dismissal. That did not deter the tour to the appellate court. Interim injunctions were granted by this Court which entertained the appeals; in some cases conditionally; and in some others wholly unconditionally.

(2.) IN the mean time, a Bench decision of this Court considered some contentions raised by the community of contractors who approached this Court by writ petitions.The decision (Issac v. Asst. Excise Commissioner, 1984 KLT 88) held that the Government's failure in the supply of arrack, disabled it from demanding the auction amount. The demands were declared illegal; the recovery process was halted. The writ petitioners got away that way. That was not the end of it. The State lookup the matter to the Supreme Court. Special Leave was granted. The traders had to part with some money. The Supreme Court stipulated payment of moiety while disposing of the interlocutory petitions filed by the Government for the stay of the operation of the judgment of the High Court.

(3.) IT is better to demonstrate the pleadings, issues and discussions with reference to specific facts and materials. A single and typical case would better serve for the demonstration. (Traversing slushy areas of different sets of pleadings, may only slow down the survey and impede the progress in the discussion obligated in that background). We select for that purpose,A.S.No.293 of 1983and the suit O.S.No.213 of 1981 of the Sub Court.Kottayam, from which the appeal has been preferred.