Judgment :

Sanjay Dhar, J.-By virtue of above titled review petitions and one writ petition, the petitioners are seeking review of judgment dated 28.12.2020 passed by this Court in a bunch of intra court appeals and one writ petition bearing LPAOW Nos. 11/2017, 20/2017, 21/2017, 22/2017, 23/2017, 44/2017 and OWP No. 486/2017. In these Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs), challenge was made to a common judgment of learned Single Judge passed in OWP No. 822/2005, titled, Sandya Devi and others vs. State of J&K and others and several others writ petitions connected therewith.

(A) Background facts:

2. Several writ petitions came to be filed before the learned Single Judge wherein challenge was laid to communication dated 14.12.2005 (Notice for cancellation of temporary licenses) addressed to the writ petitioners by the Excise Commissioner. Certain other writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge seeking regularization of temporary licenses issued in their favour by the competent authority by draw of lots. All these writ petitions came to be decided by the learned Single Judge by a common judgment dated 06.02.2017. Paragraphs 34, 35 and 36 of the judgment of the learned Single Judge are relevant to the context and same are reproduced as under:

“34. In the instant petitions, Government Order dated 22.07.2003 is not in challenge. However, herein also there is no dispute that by notice dated 25.06.2006 issued by the Excise Commissioner the licenses were essentially operable only for one year, i.e., for the year 2005-2006 and with respect to 95 locations only identified by the Committee of officers constituted by the respondents in compliance of the directions of the Division Bench. Therefore, I think, it would be inconsequential to delve into the legality or otherwise of the impugned notices issued to the petitioners. Any discussion on the submissions made at the Bar would have only academic value. Furthermore, the temporary licenses in question were issued in favour of the petitioners in terms of the Excise Police promulgated in terms of Government, vide Order No. 99-F of 2003 dated 7.4.2003 read with Order No. 156-F of 2003 dated 22.7.2003. More than thirteen years have passed since then. The said policy recognized the need for restrictive and regulative trade in the liquor till the time it was considered appropriate to bring about a total prohibition. Since the matter has been pending in the Court since then and there had been an interim order operating in the matter, obviously, the Government and the official respondents have not been able to revise the liquor policy during these years. On the other hand, the petitioners, who were granted temporary licenses for four months which could be regularised to be operable, at best, for one year, have been continuing on such licenses for more than eleven years now on Court orders merely because of pendency of these petitions.

35. I think It would be just and appropriate to dispose of all these writ petitions with liberty to the State respondents to review its Excise Policy, if they so feel, in view of the decision of the Court in PIL nos. 7/1999, 70/1999 and 136/1999 which was placed on record of LPA No. 145/99, titled ‘Residents of Kunjwani v. State of Jammu & Kashmir’, and the Government’s recognition of the need for restrictive and regulative trade in the liquor till the time it was considered appropriate to bring about a total prohibition. This would take care of the grievances of all the petitioners as well as private respondents. In that case, it would also be open to the respondents to undertake a denovo exercise to identify the locations for continuing or opening of such retail vends in accordance with any such policy as may be adopted.

36. These petitions are, accordingly, disposed of in terms of the above along with all connected CMPs. The official respondents shall undertake and complete the requisite exercise by the end of the current financial year, i.e., 31.03.2017, a