Ramachandran, J.

The above two Original Petitions were heard together, and as suggested by the parties, they are being disposed of by a common Judgment Recovery steps under Abkari liabilities are subjected to challenge.

2. In O.P.No.1369 of 1995, there had been advertence to another Original Petition filed by a similarly situated person as O.P.No.8318 of 1994. After noticing the contentions, this Court, by Judgment dated 1-2-2002, had dismissed the said Original Petition. But, however, taking notice of the submissions of the petitioners that the arguments may be noticed afresh, we had gone to the merits of the contentions raised.

3. The Original Petitions had been referred to be heard by a Bench, by order dated 13-6-2002. The learned Judge had recorded that the arguments urged by the petitioners with reference to sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act were to be noticed. The scope and impact of the amendment to Rule 13 of the Abkari Shops Departmental Management Rules, 1972, also were to be looked into. We had heard Mr. V. Giri and Mr. Bechu Kurian Thomas for the petitioners, as also the learned Government Pleader.

4. The petitioner in O.P. No. 1369 of 1995 was the l