Contractual licence fee liability cannot be limited to actual supply where auction terms require full payment and only limited refund.

Auction licence conditions required payment of the full licence fee in instalments, even if the quantity of liquor actually supplied or lifted fell short, with only the contractually specified proportionate refund available. Licensees who defaulted in instalment payments but continued to operate the vends for the licence year could not repudiate the agreed contractual burden while retaining the benefits of the licences. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 was not available to relieve parties from voluntary obligations accepted under auction terms. Recovery based on the full contractual liability therefore stood, and liability could not be confined to actual supply or lifting.

---

---

Issues: Whether the licensees were entitled to avoid payment of the full licence fee and confine liability to the quantity of liquor actually supplied or lifted, and obtain relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The licence conditions required payment of the entire auctioned licence fee in instalments, notwithstanding any shortfall in supply, and provided only for proportionate refund in the manner stated in the contract. The appellants had defaulted in payment of instalments but continued to operate the vends for the entire licence year. In these circumstances, they could not repudiate the contractual burden while retaining the benefit of the licences. The extraordinary writ jurisdiction was not available to relieve them from voluntary contractual obligations arising from accepted auction terms.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to restrict liability to the quantity actually lifted or supplied, and the challenge to recovery failed.

---