The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of R.6(26) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) R.1974, which states that no remission or abatement of the rental shall be claimable by the licensee on any account whatsoever.

K. Sukumaran, J.

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 honoured, 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. Ordinarily, when a contention has been evaluated by this Court and a decision rendered thereon, that will be taken as the law governing similar transactions. A single Judge is doubtless bound by the decision. If he entertains a doubt on the correctness of the decision, the matter can be referred to a Division Bench. The Division Bench also cannot take a view different from that which had been already declared by another Bench. Judicial discipline and institutional decorum demand that even in the case of serious doubt about the correctness of the conclusion taken on the earlier occasion, it can only direct the matter be considered by a Full Bench of the Court. That should have been, normally, the procedure to be adopted in this batch of appeals, even if we entertained - and, as will be presently demonstrated, we do entertain- serious and strong views that the earlier decision is incorrect. Things will be, however, different if any other or additional point is involved in the appeals, and if it is so strong and fundamental as to tilt the balance in favour of the State. One such point had been pointedly raised and prominently discussed by the courts below. The decision was adverse to the contractors. If that decision is sustained, the dismissal of the suit will have to be maintained, Issac's case notwithstanding. In that eventuality, the appeals and the suits themselves would stand dismissed.

4. The limited contention is based on R.6(26) of the Kerala Abkari Shops (Disposal in Auction) R.1974. It is agreed at all hands that this rule had not been relied upon by the State while defending the attack on the recovery process in the earlier batch of writ petitions. If the question had been properly pleaded, if an issue has been rightly raised, and if a discussion and decision have been made, this Court is duty bound to devote adequate attention to it.

5. It is better to demonstrate the pleadings, issues and discussions with reference to specific facts and mat