AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. Petitioner-defendant No.5 has filed the present revision petition against the impugned orders dated 26.05.2016 and 11.05.2016 passed by the Courts below, whereby, suit instituted at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs claiming relief of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to measure 'To' and 'Fro' motor able distance between the location of L-2 Liquor Vend of the plaintiffs located in Phase-V, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon and marked by letters ABCD in the annexed site plan as well as the distance of L-2 Liquor Vends located at Moulsary Avenue, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon and village Nathupur U-Block, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon and marked by letters EFGYH and IJKL respectively in the aforesaid site pan, from DLF Cyber Hub in accordance with applicable Excise Policy after giving prior notice to them and consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from acting upon in any manner the measurements allegedly conducted on 12.04.2016 with a further direction to the defendants restraining them from issuing any permit or granting any sanction on the basis of the aforesaid measurement in favour of L-2 Liquor Vends located at Moulsary Avenue, DLF Phase- III, Gurgaon and village Nathupur U-Block, DLF Phase-III, Gurgaon.

2. Mr. Chetan Mittal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner/defendant No.5 submits that the order dated 26.05.2016 passed by the Lower Appellate Court dismissing the miscellaneous appeal of petitioner/defendant No.5 filed against the order dated 11.05.2016 of the trial Court, whereby, an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) at the instance of the respondent-plaintiffs has been allowed in the form of mandatory injunction.

3. He further submits that the entire controversy in the present suit is in respect of Clause 9.8.9 of the Excise Policy of Haryana State for the year 2016-17, whereby, the rights to supply were given to the two (2) nearest retail outlets of IMFL L-2 bar licenses located nearby. The grievance of the plaintiff before the Court was that he was not given an opportunity in implementation of the aforementioned clause of the policy while effecting the measurement for the purpose of supply of IMFL from L-2 to the bar licensees, in essence, procurement of stock of liquor/IMFL by the Bar & Restaurants/Eating Joints having L-4/L-5 situated at DLF Cyber Hub. In support of his aforementioned contention, he relies upon Clause 9.8.9 of Excise Policy, copy of which has been attached which reads thus:-

“9.8.9 Procurement of Stock:

Bar licensees, L-4/L-5/L-12C/L-12G, shall be allowed to get their supplies from any two nearest retail outlets of IMFL (L-2) of the district in which L-4/L-5/L-12C/L-12G licenses is/are located. However, if these two L-2 either belong to the same person/group or make a cartel to exploit the situation, then they can procure liquor from a third nearest L-2 of different person/group as approved by the DETC (Excise). The collector may fix rates whenever necessary. In case costly brands above Rs.500 per bottle or wines are not made available to L-4/L- 5/L-12C/L-12G by L-2 licensee of the district then the bar licensee can make a written request to the DETC (Ex.) concerned. The DETC (Ex.) after obtaining a non-availability certificate from the L-2 concerned, shall be required to make requisite arrangement for supply of such brands from any other L-2 of the district or from any other L-2 of the State in case it is not available in the district.

L-2 vend can charge up to 1-% profit on his sale to L-4/L-5 after taking into account his purchase price and incidence of license fee or the retail sale being charged by the L-2, whichever is less. In case, L-2 charges exorbitant rates from bars (L-4/L-5/L-12C/L-12G, L-10E), collec