By this application the respondent in Civil Rule No.3940 of 1995 and appellant in Writ Appeal No.477 of 1995 prays for vacating and/or modifying and/or reviewing the order dated 19.9.95 passed by this Court in the aforesaid Civil Rule and further prays for setting aside the order dated 27.7.95 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia. 2. Smti Epyayen Gohain file a writ petition (Civil Rule No.3940 of 1995) praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction. She owns and possesses a cinema theatre at Margherita in the district of Tinsukia known as Shyam Talkies, Margherita. The licence stands in the name of the writ petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia, renewed the said licence from time to time. On or about 22nd day of April, 1957, writ petitioner's father-in-law late Chowken Gohain had applied for a licence for exhibition by means of cinematograph to the then District Magistrate, Lakhimpur District. Licence was granted to him by the District Magistrate, Lakhimpur in the name of Shyam Talkies. The father-in-law of the writ petitioner died on 8.8.70 leaving behind writ petitioner's husband Chouney Gohain (since deceased) and his brother Robin Gohain. The authority, thereafter, granted licence to the husband of the writ petitioner. He also died on 14.9.84 leaving behind the writ petitioner with four minor children. As the licence could not be transferred as per Cinematograph Rules, the writ petitioner applied afresh to the authority to grant a licence to her in the name of Shyam Talkies. Considering the petition filed by the writ petitioner, the authority issued fresh licence to her on 8.6.88 as per direction issued by the General Administration Department, Government of Assam, General (A) Branch and since then the licence had been renewed from time to time. The licence was renewed upto 31.3.96. Petitioner in her writ petition states that her husband suddenly died leaving behind her and her four minor children. The petitioner was mentally upset. She could not give proper attention to the affairs of the aforesaid cinema business. Ultimately she had to close down the theatre in the year 1988 and the authority granted certificate (Annexure D to the writ petition) certifying closure of the cinema theatre. The petitioner was mentally upset. She could not give proper attention to the affairs of the aforesaid cinema business. Ultimately she had to close down the theatre in the year 1988 and the authority granted certificate (Annexure D to the writ petition) certifying closure of the cinema theatre. During closure of the theatre, the 4th respondent (present petitioner) with the help of his men entered the cinema theatre and wanted to take possession of the theatre on the plea that in the year 1984 they had entered into an agreement with the writ petitioner allowing them to run the cinema theatre on her behalf. The writ petitioner further stated in her petition that there was no such agreement as during that period she was the licensee in respect of the said theatre. Thereafter, according to the petitioner though she wanted to open the theatre for her livelihood, she could not do so as she felt in secured and helpless because of conspiracy hatched by the 4th respondent (present petitioner) and his agents. In the month of June, 1988 the writ petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh informing him about the evil design of the 4th respondent (the present petitioner) and requesting him to provide security so that she could open the cinema theatre to earn her livelihood. However, the authority did not respond to the appeal. The writ petitioner filed yet another appeal on 17.11.1994 before the Deputy Commissioner, Tinsukia renewing her prayer. Even when the authority did not respond. Taking advantage of her helpless condition, the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had been putting hindrance so that she could not open the cinema theatre and he could grab the entire property. The writ petitioner further stated in her petition that the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had been making attempt to take over the theatre by paying lump sum amount to the writ petitioner. In spite of her financial difficulties, she did not agree to it. In her petition the writ petitioner also stated that the entire land, building and machineries of the theatre stood in her name and, in fact, she was the sole proprieties and that the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had no right, title or interest whatsoever in the said theatre. The petitioner was willing to reopen the theatre. In her petition the writ petitioner also stated that the entire land, building and machineries of the theatre stood in her name and, in fact, she was the sole proprieties and that the 4th respondent i.e. the present petitioner had no right, title or interest whatsoever in the said theatre. The petitioner was willing to reopen the theatre. However this was not possible in view of the obstruction put by the 4th respondent (the present petitioner). Situated thus, she filed the above Civil Rule. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and the learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, Assam, this Court felt that it was only a law and order problem and, therefore, directed the 2nd and 3rd respondents in the writ petition to give protection to the writ petitioner so that she could run the cinema theatre smoothly. Thereafter, the present petitioner filed a Writ Appeal (No.477 of 1995). By order dated 10.11.95 a Division Bench of this Court declined to entertain the appeal, however, observed that proper remedy for the petitioner would be to move this Court for proper relief. Hence the present petition. 4. The 4th respondent in the writ petition, the present petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') in his application for vacation and/or modification or alteration of the order dated 19.9.95 has stated that the writ petitioner before obtaining the order suppressed the facts that certificate was obtained by her from the licencing authority by suppressing and misrepresenting the facts. The petitioner also stated that the writ petitioner was involved in criminal activities in collusion with the official staff in tempering with the original revenue records and obtained a copy of the jamabandi from the tampered records. The petitioner has also stated that on or about 22.4.57 late Chouken Gohain, father-in-law of the writ petitioner applied for licence to the then District Magistrate, Lakhimpur District. In his application late Chouken Gohain gave description and particulars of the land owned by him on which the theatre would be built. The District Magistrate approved the site. The matter remained as such without any further activity on the land till 1960. Thereafter, said late Chouken Gohain approached the present petitioner and others seeking finance to build the theatre and also to get themselves associated in running the theatre for which he applied for the licence. The District Magistrate approved the site. The matter remained as such without any further activity on the land till 1960. Thereafter, said late Chouken Gohain approached the present petitioner and others seeking finance to build the theatre and also to get themselves associated in running the theatre for which he applied for the licence. In that regard late Chouken Gohain by his Annexure 2 letter dated 21.8.64 informed the then District Magistrate that he had associated himself with those persons for running the proposed cinema business. Along with the said letter a copy of the site plan had also been annexed. Thereafter, as desired by late Chouken Gohain and the aforesaid persons, a private limited company under the name and style of Shyam Talkies Private Limited was formed and the said company was incorporated on 4.1.67 under the Companies Act, 1956 with its registered office at Margherita. A resolution was adopted in a meeting held on 7.1.67 by the Board of Directors of the said company presided over by late Chouken Gohain. As per the said resolution the 'no objection' certificate granted by the then District Magistrate to late Chouken Gohain would be taken up by the company and the present petitioner as the Managing Director and late Chouken Gohain had been authorised to take necessary steps to get 'no objection' certificate and the formal licence when issued transferred in the name of the company and pending final transfer of name of the licence late Chouken Gohain was authorised to make correspondence in his individual name so far as the no objection certificate or the cinema licence were concerned. Thereafter, on 25.9.67 late Chouken Gohain sold the site land to Shyam Talkies Private Ltd by registered deed of sale to enable the company to raise structure for the proposed theatre and the structure was constructed. From later part of 1967, said Shyam Talkies Private Ltd had been carrying on its business of Cinematography under the name and style of Shyam Talkies at Margherita till 25.5.88 when the theatre was closed down and all its employees were laid off. The petitioner has also stated that the Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India by Annexure 6 letter dated 2.7.68 informed the then Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District about the completion of necessary formalities for supply of approved film on the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. The petitioner has also stated that the Film Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India by Annexure 6 letter dated 2.7.68 informed the then Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District about the completion of necessary formalities for supply of approved film on the terms and conditions mutually agreed upon. On completion of necessary formalities, late Chouken Gohain was granted the cinema licence for running the theatre Shyam Talkies. It has also been stated that till the death of late Chouken Gohain, the company had been managing the affairs of the theatre as an associate or Managing Agent of late Chouken Gohain and had been maintaining all accounts and paying Income Tax etc. Chouken Gohain died on 8.8.70. 6. The writ petitioner Smti Epyayen Gohain has filed an affidavit-in- opposition denying the averments made by the petitioner. 7. Heard both sides. 8. Petitioner's main contention is that there was an arrangement between late Chouken Gohain, father-in-law of the writ petitioner and on the basis of the said arrangement the company was floated. There are claims and counter claims regarding the arrangement and the right of the petitioners in respect of construction and running of the said cinema theatre. Respective claims are to be established by the parties in a proper Court inasmuch as the facts averred by the petitioner have been denied by the writ petitioner/respondent and, therefore, these are disputed facts. In view of this, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot embark upon in making enquiry. The order dated 19.9.95 in Civil Rule No.3940 of 1995 was passed on the basis of licence granted by the Deputy Commissioner. This order was not passed on the basis of claims and counter claims of the parties. So long the present licence stands the writ petitioner/respondent has right to run the theatre on the basis of the said licence. It is, however, open to the Deputy Commissioner to cancel or withdraw the said licence if the petitioner can establish his rights in a competent Court. So long this is not done the writ petitioner shall continue to run the cinema theatre as per the terms and conditions of the licence. If there is any obstruction from any quarter including the petitioner, this may give rise to law and order problem and the Deputy Commissioner shall tackle the problem in accordance with law. 9. So long this is not done the writ petitioner shall continue to run the cinema theatre as per the terms and conditions of the licence. If there is any obstruction from any quarter including the petitioner, this may give rise to law and order problem and the Deputy Commissioner shall tackle the problem in accordance with law. 9. With the above observation this petition is disposed of.