( 1 ) THE present appeal was dismissed in default and for non-prosecution vide order dated 3rd May, 2007. Subsequent thereto, an application, CM No. 9209/2007 was filed by the appellant praying for restoration of the present appeal. ( 2 ) SINCE none appeared on behalf of the appellant on 3rd May, 2007, the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and default. However, the appellant has been able to make out a case of sufficient cause in his application for non-appearance of the counsel on 3rd May, 2007. We are satisfied with the reasons given in the application. Consequently, we recall the order dated 3rd May, 2007. ( 3 ) CM No. 9209/2007 is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. Appeal is restored to its original number. LPA No. 355/2006 ( 4 ) WITH the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is taken up for consideration and disposal. ( 5 ) IT is agreed by the learned counsel for the parties that the subject matter of the present appeal is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Civil appeal No. 2802/2006. ( 6 ) WE have perused copy of the said judgment and have considered the facts and circumstances of the present case in the light of the said judgment. Subject matter before the Supreme Court and this Court are similar and identical as is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent also. By the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal filed for grant of L-52 licence. One of the ground on which the said appeal was rejected was that the period for which licence had to be issued to the party had expired. It was also held by the Supreme Court that Courts cannot direct grant of licence for the next year and that the State has the exclusive privilege and the citizen has no fundamental right to carry on business in liquor*. It was observed by the supreme Court that the policy which would be applicable is the one which is prevalent on the date of grant and not the one applicable on the date when the application was filed and that if a policy decision had been taken on 16. 9. 2005 not to grant L-52 licence, no licence could have been granted after the said date. 9. 2005 not to grant L-52 licence, no licence could have been granted after the said date. ( 7 ) THE learned Single Judge, therefore, committed an error and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the impugned judgment has to be set aside. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and hold that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) WE order accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order. ( 9 ) IT is however, made clear that if and when the respondent makes a fresh application for grant of licence, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.