J&K HC junks wine shops review pleas

Jammu: Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed the bunch of review petitions seeking review of judgment in the wine shops case.
A Division Bench of Jammu and Kashmir High Court comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing the review petitions, observed that Court cannot rehear and correct erroneous judgment by way of a review. DB further said that a mere repetition of old and over ruled arguments are insufficient for exercising jurisdiction of review. Thus, we do not find any merit in these review petitions and writ petition.
DB observed that 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. In these Letters Patent Appeals(LPAs), challenge was made to a common judgment of 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.
Several writ petitions were filed before the 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.
DB observed that there are three sets of review petitioners before us. The first set are those who were parties to the proceedings before the writ court as well as the Division Bench. The second set are those who were neither parties to the proceedings before the writ court nor before the Division Bench and they claim to be the parties affected by the judgment. One more review petition has been filed by the petitioners who were holding Excise Licenses under Form No. JKEL 3 i.e. retail vends in a Hotel and Form JKEL 4, retail vends in a Bar attached to the restaurant, cinema/theater or dak bungalow. Besides this, one writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who was not a party to the proceedings either before the writ court or before the Division Bench. He has sought an order for recall of the judgment in question.
DB further observed that what we, is that in the guise of review petitions, petitioners have tried to persuade this Court to rehear the issues that have already been decided. Certain other contentions have been raised to canvass the point that the judgment under review is erroneous in law and that the Court has proceeded on an incorrect premise of law.
DB is of the firm view that even if it is assumed that the view taken by us on any point may not be right but it is not a ground for review that a judgment proceeds on an incorrect exposition of law. Simply because a judge has gone wrong in law that is no ground for a review, though it may be a ground for appeal. Thus we do not find any merit in these review petitions/writ petition. For the forgoing reasons we are not inclined to exercise our jurisdiction to interfere with the judgment under review. Accordingly all the afore titled review petitions including the writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 538/2021 are dismissed.