The second respondent in the writ petition is coming up with this review. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the stay order evidenced by Ext.P16 of the State Government issued against a resolution of the petitioner/second respondent evidenced by Ext.P15 order passed on 16.1.2014. The writ petitioner had constructed a hotel at Kayamkulam with an intention to convert it as a 4 star hotel along with bar facilities. He approached the Ministry of Tourism, Government of India for a 4 star hotel classification. However, his request was returned as per Ext.P13 as the bar license is essential for a 4 star category. It was at that juncture, the petitioner/second respondent passed Ext.P15 resolution on 16.1.2014 deciding to issue NOC for establishing an FL3 Bar in the hotel of the writ petitioner. However, this decision was temporarily stayed by the petitioner/second respondent by Ext.P16 order. It was against that the writ petition was filed.
3. This Court by judgment dated 17.7.2014 allowed the writ petition directing the petitioner to issue formal orders conveying NOC.
4. The present review petition has come up in the wake of the change in the abkari policy of the Government, which according to the petitioner/ second respondent has caused a predicament for the petitioner in the matter of implementing the orders of this Court.
5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
6. It appears from record that the intention of the petitioner/second respondent is to prolong the decision in the light of a policy decision taken by the Government.
As I see no apparent error on the face of record calling for a review, I am of the view that there is no need to modify the judgment. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE css/ true copy P.S.TO JUDGE