- (1.) 07/01.05.2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The review petitioner, herein, is said to be the landlord of the premises in respect of which the Bar and Restaurant license of the writ petitioner has been renewed. The writ petitioner had approached this Court stating that the respondents be directed to renew his license for the Bar and Restaurant being License no. 3/12 -13 for the period 2013 -14 claiming that he has tenancy agreement with the landlord. He had also submitted that there was an objection by the landlord in relation to the inter se dispute and, therefore, his license was not being renewed. A show cause had also been issued upon the petitioner by the Licensing Authority. He also responded to the said show cause and submitted an affidavit about the genuineness of the tenancy agreement. In the background of the aforesaid statements of fact, the writ petitioner had made a prayer that the licensing authority should take a decision on his application for renewal of the license. After noticing these facts, the judgment of which review has been sought for was passed on 03.05.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 2148 of 2013, which is quoted hereunder: "Heard counsel for the parties.
(2.) PRAYER of the petitioner in the instant case is to direct the respondents to renew his license for Bar and Restaurant under Excise Form No. 9 and 10 being License No. 3/2012 - 13 for the period 2013 -14 for smooth running of the Bar and Restaurant. It is submitted that petitioner has tenancy agreement with the land lord for the period from 24.3.2012 to 23.3.2019, however on the objection of the land lord in relation to inter -se dispute, petitioner's license has not been renewed and show cause has been issued upon the petitioner vide Annexure -4. It is further submitted that petitioner has already responded to the said show cause notice vide Annexure -5, thereafter, petitioner has also submitted an affidavit to the effect of genuineness of the tenancy agreement. It is submitted that on wholly frivolous pretext, the matter of renewal of excise license of the petitioner is being delayed, which has caused serious loss to the petitioner and he is unable to carry out his business. However, after hearing counsel for the parties, in these circumstances, this Court without getting into the merit of the case, disposes of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent no.4, The Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro with a fresh representation for renewal of his license for which he is said to have already made his application on 9.1.2013 (Annexure -3). The respondent no.4 shall take an informed decision on the question of grant of excise license to the petitioner within a period of three weeks, thereafter in accordance with law. It is made clear that the observation contained herein above shall in no way treated to be comment upon the merit of the case.
(3.) THE writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms." A bare perusal of the said judgment indicates that this Court after noticing the contention of the writ petitioner, gave a liberty to the petitioner to approach the licensing authority for renewal of his license, who in turn was directed to take an informed decision on the question of grant of license thereafter in accordance with law. This Court had clearly observed in the said judgment that no observations contained herein shall be treated to be comment upon the merit of the case. The petitioner, herein, however has stated that the writ petitioner has obtained an order from this Court behind the back of the review petitioner, who was the landlord of the premises in question, which has led to the issuance of the license in his favour. The review petitioner has stated that the agreement in question is not a bona fide document rather it is a forged/fabricated document. ;