JUDGMENT Both these Appeals involving common questions of law and fact are taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed two suits for recovery of excess amount of excise duty paid to the Administration purported to be in terms of Andaman & Nicobar Islands Regulation No. III of 1876 read with Andaman Excise Rules, 1934. 3. A question arose as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as prayed for in view of the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' as they had passed on the said duty to the customers. 4. The learned trial Judge having regard to the pleadings of the parties framed several issues including the issue as to whether the plaintiff had recovered any amount paid by way of excise duty from the consumers, and if so, is it untitled to recover the said amount from the defendant? 5. The said suit was decreed and an appeal there against was filed by the appellants herein. Issue No. 8 was considered by the learned Court of Appeal below in great details and, inter alia, decided the same against the appellant. 6. It may be noticed that during pendency of these appeals, the A & N Regulation No. III of 1876 was amended in 1984. The said regulation was •declared ultra vires by a Division Bench of this Court. The Deputy Commissioner of Andaman District, Port Blair preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court of India against the judgment of this Court wherein the aforementioned question of 'unjust enrichment' was specifically raised. Before the Apex Court reliance on behalf of the appellant had been placed on its earlier decisions in (1) State of Madhya Pradesh v. Venkat Lall & Drs. reported in 1985(2) SCC 544 , and (2) Mafatlal Industries v. Union of India reported in 1997(5) SCC 536 , but tile Apex Court held :- "The principles underlying the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment' as culled out from the aforesaid two decisions will have no application to the case in hand, in view findings arrived at by the High Court on consideration of the entire materials-an-record that it is nobody's case that the excise duty was recovered from the purchaser by the wine merchants. Since the burden has not been passed on to the purchaser as found by the High Court and the levy having been held to be unconstitutional the State would not be entitled to resist the claim of refund by application of the doctrine of 'unjust enrichment'. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity with the directions of the High Court to refund the illegal levy collected from the respondents. The Appeals accordingly fail and are dismissed, but in the circumstance of the case, there will be no order as to costs." 7. The said decision has since been reported in (3) ILR 2000(1) A & N 89, Deputy Commissioner, Andaman District, Port Blair v. Consumer Co-operative Stores Ltd. 8. The Apex Court, thus, clearly held that the direction of High Court to refund the amount was not illegal as the excise duties had no~ been collected from their customers by the respondents. 9. Unfortunately, a Division Bench of this Court while admitting the appeal on 30th March, 2000 did not formulate any substantial question of law as is mandatorily required under sub-section (4) of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 10. When questioned, Mr. Roy submits that the only substantial question of law which arises for consideration in these Appeals is as to whether the judgment of this Court as also the Apex Court should have been followed by the learned Court of Appeal below having regard to the fact that attention of the Courts was not drawn to the pendency of the suits wherein the parties had led evidences. The learned Counsel would urge that had the said fact been brought to the notice of this Court as also the Apex Court of India, probably such a direction would not have issued. The learned Court of Appeal below in his judgment under appeal has referred to the decision of the Apex Court of India in Deputy Commissioner's case (supra), and inter alia, held that in that view of the matter, the said question is no longer open to the Appellant herein. However, the learned Court of Appeal below has also discussed the evidences brought on record by the parties. 11. Mr. However, the learned Court of Appeal below has also discussed the evidences brought on record by the parties. 11. Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submits that having regard to the fact that the matter stands conclusively determined by the decision of the Apex Court, the appellant herein should not again be permitted to raise the question of 'unjust enrichment' particularly in view of the fact that both the Courts of below have held that the plaintiffs are entitled to refund of excise duty paid to the appellant herein. 12. In terms of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the High Court is enjoined with a duty to formulate a substantial question of law at the time of admission. Such formulation of a substantial question of law is essential inasmuch as, in a given case it may be open to the respondent to contend that such question as formulated may not arise for consideration having regard to the findings of the Courts below as also the facts and circumstances of the case. It was, thus, obligatory on the part of this Court to formulate a substantial question of law. However, as indicated hereinbefore, the learned Counsel for the appellant has categorically stated before this Court as to what would be the question of law which would have fallen for this Court's determination. 13. Assuming that the aforementioned substantial question of law could be formulated at the time of admission, this Court is of the opinion that the point at issue having been conclusively determined by a Division Bench of this Court as also the Apex Court, the plea raised herein would be barred by res judicata and/or constructive res judicata. This Court cannot pass a judgment contrary to the judgment of the Apex Court only on the ground that the appellant had failed to bring to the notice of this Court as also the Apex Court that on the self-same issue suits have been filed by the respondent herein. If they had not done so, they should not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. 14. If they had not done so, they should not be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong. 14. Furthermore, it is now well-settled that principles of res judicata also apply to a writ proceedings and consequently the principles analogous to Explanation-IV appended to Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall debar the appellant to raise the said question inasmuch as, it was their duty to raise all contentions before this Court as also the Apex Court, as the same could have and ought to have been raised. 15. Furthermore, it appears from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court which has since been reported in (4) 1994(1) CLJ 295 , Harinarayan Arora v. Union of India, that in fact the attention of this Court had been drawn to the pendency of the said Money Suit inasmuch as, the learned District Judge was directed by this Court to proceed with the Appeal, namely, Money Appeal arising out of Money Suit No. 12 of 1980 in the light of this Court's decision. In that view of the matter, no question of law far less any substantial question of law arises in these appeals which are accordingly dismissed but in the facts and circumstances of this case there will be no order as to costs.