inserted in the terms of the auction that liquor would be snpplied in pilfer-proof bottles with metal covers and because of the non-fulfilment of this condition he had lost Rs.-/8/per bottle which totalled up toRs. 26, 400/- on the total number of bottles that would have been supplied to him if the oontra.ot had gone on for the full year. In addition, under the sa.me head there was a further c]a.im in paragraph 8 for Rs. 1,047 flO/-, stated to be the loss caused by the · government charging a price based on the supply in pilfer-proof bottles though the supplies were made in ordinary containers. Paragraph 7 made a claim for a sum ofR8. 5,008/11/ stated to be the price of deficient quantity of liquor supplied because of the supply in. under· sized bottles. Pra.graph 9 contained a complaint that it was a terms of the contract that empty bottles would be bought baok but that this h,ad not beAn done, as a result of which the plA-in· tiff ha.d lost Rs. 931/8/-. Paragraph 10 complainPd that the Government had not tken steps to suppr· ese iJJicit distillation which had caused loss, though the loss was neither quantified nor any claim made under that head, wbile paragraphs II to 13 challenged the legality of the artion taken by the Excise a.nthorities in uspending the licence and in taking over the vend-shops under their management. In paragraph 16 the pJaint.iff c]aimed a refund of Rs. 21,460/ .. which had bt-·en deposited into the Treasury at the time t.he licenr.e was granted to the appellant. nnd rinalJy in paragraph 19 the p]aint made a claim that by reason of government having broken the contract the plaintiff had lost a. profit every month of Its. 5. 052/ for the unworked r.eriod of the year of thP licence, i. e. from July 1, 1952 to March 31, 1953 which totalled R. 45,471/6/-. These several heads added up to Rs. 1,09,653/llfand the plaint went on to state:
