Civil Review No.44/2007 26.3.2008 Present: Mr. R.M.Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the petitioner. We had disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 680 of 2007 on 30.5.2007 in the following terms:- “Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that the vested rights of the petitioners could not have been adversely affected by amending the Rules and the notification in question cannot be made applicable to the persons who have already submitted their applications for allotments of vends, had been allotted and had paid the license fees on the assumption that they would be permitted to sell beer from their vends throughout the financial year. However, this notification being within the powers of the State will be applicable from the next financial year. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition by holding that though the State Government is entitled to issue the impugned notification the same will not be applicable to those licensees like the petitioners, who had applied for, were granted and paid the license fee for L-14 and L-14-A vends prior to the date of issuance of the said notification. The notification can only apply to those vends which are allotted after 28.4.2007 the date of issuance of this notification. Petitioners are held entitled to costs of Rs.5000/-.” By means of this review petition, it is prayed that the aforesaid order be reviewed since it will cause financial loss to the exchequer and that the order imposing costs may be reviewed. We had even in our judgment clearly held that the State was entitled to make the rules and had upheld the notification. We had, however, held that this notification could not apply to those persons who had already submitted their applications and paid the license fees. The Financial year is coming to end and we have also held that for the next financial year the State is empowered to enforce the notification. We had imposed the costs keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case. We may also add that while disposing of the writ petition, we had dealt with clause (4) of the amendment whereby Schedule- A to Rule item No.1 has been amended. We find no error apparent on the face of the record. The review petition is dismissed. ( Deepak Gupta ), J. March 26, 2008. (Surinder Singh), J. s.