The court's decision emphasized the importance of interpreting the statutory provisions of the Abkari Act and Rules, and rejected the plea based on promissory estoppel.

1. The questions that arise for consideration in these Original Petitions. are practically the same. Facts are identical except to the extent of variations relating to the number of arrack shops. the locality where the arrack shops are situated and the rental on which respective parties have acquired the right to vend liquor in the respective areas. The Original Petitions are therefore disposed of by a common judgment.

2. Facts relevant for considering the questions involved in these Original Petitions. are few. The notice of auction of arrack shops for the year 1983-84 was published in the Kerala Gazette dated 20-2-1984. The crucial statement. according to the petitioners. contained in said Government Order is:

"The auction sale will be held subject to the conditions set forth in the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules. 1974".

Relevant rules in the Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) Rules. hereinafter referred to as "The Rules". to which particular reference has been made in these Original Petitions. is R.8. This Court had occasion to interpret the scope of this Rule in the decision reported in Issac v. Assistant Excise Commissioner & Others. 1984 K.L.T. 88. It is submitted that the Government has no authority to set at naught the said decision. without amending R.8. As per the said Rule. as interpreted by this Court. the Government are bound to supply additional quantity of arrack required by the petitioners. In some petitions. the petitioners have stated that it is only because of the existence of the above position. they offered huge amounts as rental in the auction. In short. they contended that the representation held out by the Government. that additional quantity of arrack will be supplied to them. made them offer huge rental for the right to vend liquor in the respective localities. mentioned in the agreements.

3. But it is stated. that after the confirmation of the sales by auction in favour of the petitioners and the execution of the permanent agreements thereafter. they came to know about a change in the condition in the licence granted to them. This change of the condition was introduced by G.O. MS.31/84/ TD dated 22-2-1984. marked as Ext.Pl in O.P. 10892 of 1984. The petitioners allege that Ext. P1 order however. has not been published in the Gazette. Hence the same has no force of law.

4. Some of the petitioners have an additional case that even the agreed quantity of arrack was not supplied in time and therefore they had even to close the arrack shops for some time. However. it is not their case that the authority concerned has not supplied to them additional quantity of arrack at all. They do concede that the authority concerned has been supplying to them additional quantity of arrack; but they however. submit that the authorities concerned failed to supply the entire additional quantity. they had agreed to supply.

5. In these circumstances. the petitioners. it is submitted. defaulted payment of the instalments which resulted in the initiation of proceedings for recovery of kist arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act. In certain cases the licences have also been cancelled.

6. The petitioners in the above circumstances have prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to supply to the petitioners the monthly quota of arrack in time and also reasonable quantity of additional quota of arrack for each of the shops where they are vending arrack. There is yet another prayer namely. that a direction may be issued to the respondents not to enforce payments based on the demands made by the authority concerned consequent on the defaults committed by the petitioners in regard to the payment of the dues. Yet another relief prayed for is the issue of a writ of prohibition. restraining the respondents from conducting any re-auction although the petitioners have defaulted payment of the instalments as agreed upon.

7. It is axiomatic that no citizen has the fundamental right to carry on