The judgment established the principle that the waiver of fundamental rights and the benefit from a monopoly can preclude a party from questioning the constitutional validity of a statutory provision.

1. These writ appeals are directed against the common judgment is two writ petitions disposed of by our learned brother Mathew J. along with a batch of other writ petitions involving the same questions. The appellants are bidders in auction of the right to vend country liquor as a monopoly in particular areas. They were the highest bidders; and they executed agreements to the Government and obtained licences. They paid some of the instalments of the kist too and then defaulted the payment of further instalments. The Government took steps to re-auction the right with a view to recover the difference in the amounts to be obtained in such re-auctions and the amounts payable by the appellants and also to recover the arrears of the kist under the Revenue Recovery Act. The appellants then filed writ petitions and obtained stay of the proceedings started by the Government. They contended that S.18-A of the Cochin Abkari Act of 1077, which was amended by the Abkari Laws (Amendment and Validation) Act in 1964 and extended to the whole of Kerala by another Act in 1967, was ultra vires the Constitution as it infringed the fundamental right of the appellants to carry on the trade in liquor; and that the rental was neither an excise duty nor a luxury tax nor a fee and therefore, an illegal exaction, for which there was no authority vested in the State under the Constitution. Mathew J. dismissed these contentions and dismissed the writ petitions.

2. Several contentions have been raised before us by Mr. V. K.. K. Menon, the counsel of the appellant in one of these cases. Since other writ petitions were also disposed of by Mathew J. by the same judgment, we allowed the counsel in some of those writ petitions also to intervene and advance arguments; and Mr. M. I. Joseph and Mr. K. Sudhakaran have also adduced arguments. Some of the contentions raised by Mr. V. K. K. Menon but not seriously pursued are that S.18-A is ultra vires as it involved excessive delegation of legislative power; that many provisions of the Abkari Act offend the rights guaranteed under Art.301 of the Constitution, since they imposed serious and unreasonable restrictions on the movement of the liquor trade; and that the contracts between the Government and the appellants were vitiated by a mutual mistake of law. These contentions have not been seriously pressed. However, regarding the last contention we shall add a few words towards the close of this judgment. The contentions which have been seriously pursued may now be considered.

3. The first contention is that S.18-A offends the fundamental rights of the appellants under Art.14 and 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution, Before Mathew J. no argument appears to have been adduced that the appellants' fundamental right under Art.14 has been infringed, though that also appears to have been pleaded in the writ petitions.

4. Under S.17 of the Abkari Act an excise duty or luxury tax or both may be levied by the Government on the import, export, transport, manufacture, etc. of liquor; and under S.18 the mode of imposition and the rates of such levies are provided. Then under S.18-A provision is made for the grant of exclusive or other privilege of manufacture or supply by wholesale and sale by retail of liquor to any person or persons on such condition and for such term as the Government may deem fit in consideration for a rental. The Government may fix the rental by auction, negotiation or any other method, from time to time, and collect the same in addition to the duty or tax leviable under S.17 and 18. Under S.20 the tax, duty or rental may be farmed out to licensees. S.24 makes provision for the forms and conditions of the licences; and S.25

provides that the licensees may be required to execute counterpart agreements in conformity with the tenor of the licences and to give securities for the performance of the agreements. Then comes S.28, which provides for the recovery of duties, taxes, fines, fees and all amounts due to