Per Virender Singh, J.;— 1. Through the; instant review petition, the petitioner-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as petitioner-society) seeks review of paras 7 & 9 of the Judgment dated 10-09-2012 passed by this Court, stating that inadvertently an error has crept in in the Judgment with regard to number of members of the petitioner-Society and with regard to number of shops constructed by the Hospital Authorities. 2. It is averred in the petition that, in fact, the petitioner-society has a membership of 119 ex-servicemen, whereas in para 7 of the Judgment, it is shown as 4 Ex-servicemen. Likewise in para No. 9 of the Judgment, it has been reflected that Mrs. Goswami stated that the Hospital Authorities have constructed three shops which has resulted into dismantling of tin shed, whereas, in fact, on the dismantled tin shed, only one shop has been constructed and it was pleaded by the petitioner-society that the same was constructed for providing alternate accommodation to it for running the fair price shop and that the other two shops have still not been constructed. 3. When the instant review petition was taken up by this Court on 19-09-2012, it was brought to the notice of the Court by Mr. Raina, learned Sr. Advocate, that after pronouncement of Judgment in the main LPA in presence of Mrs. Goswami, learned Dy. AG, Medical Superintendent, District Hospital, Udhampur had taken the forcible possession of the shop which was earlier allotted to the petitioner-society and that the said shop has also been dismantled to a great extent. Not only that, the medicines lying in the shop were also thrown out. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner-society was not given the occupation of the newly constructed shop despite there being a specific direction in this regard. Mr. Raina, thus, sought restitution of the shop also. 4. On request of Mrs. Goswami, the matter was taken up on the next date on which date she received latest communication dated 18-09-2012 from Director Health Services, Jammu and as per the said communication, the Medical Authority was to hand over the possession of the shop to the petitioner-society on fresh agreement/terms and conditions to be finalized by the Committee to be constituted by Director Health Services, Jammu. Mrs. Goswami sought at least four weeks' time for completing the entire process. Mrs. Goswami sought at least four weeks' time for completing the entire process. However, the Court did not accede to her request and taking into account that there was no medical shop available for indoor and outdoor patients in the Hospital premises, Medical Superintendent District Hospital, Udhampur was directed to allot newly constructed shop to the petitioner-society within two days only. 5. Since the needful was not done within the stipulated period as directed by this Court, Medical Superintendent District Hospital Udhampur was directed to appear in person before the Court. 6. Pursuant to our directions, Medical Superintendent District Hospital Udhampur is present and states that possession of newly constructed shop has since been handed over to the petitioner-society, but new terms and conditions have to be finalized. He submits that so far as medicines are concerned, all the medicines which were lying in the old shop within the premises of the Hospital have been kept safe by making an inventory and the same shall also be handed over to the petitioner-society today itself. 7. So far as terms and conditions are concerned, Mr. Raina submits that the same are very harsh and it appears that the Medical Authority, in fact, wants to show ouster to the petitioner-society by not allotting the newly constructed shop. He submits that in terms of the directions passed by this Court while disposing of LPA, it was left open to the Medical Authority to enhance the rent of the shop to a reasonable extent and the rent is now enhanced by Rs. 1000/- which the petitioner-society can bear, but one of the main condition is that the it will have to pay Rs. 3D lacs per annum as premium. According to Mr. Raina, this on the face of it appears to be most unfair. 8. Mrs. Raina further submits that in terms of Government Order No. 492-HME of 2008 dated 17-06-2008, the Government had taken a policy-decision that those who have already got allotment without auction can be considered for extension with some increase in the rent. He submits that, but for Udhampur, wherever the fair price shop is being run by the society, such harsh terms and conditions have not been imposed. He submits that, but for Udhampur, wherever the fair price shop is being run by the society, such harsh terms and conditions have not been imposed. According to him, petitioner-society is also parting with a reasonably good amount as volunteer welfare contribution which includes the-discount to the patients, bonus to its employees, ex-servicemen’s' widows' funds, employees welfare fund. Therefore, if such harsh terms and conditions are imposed upon the petitioner-society to run this fair price shop, virtually it would frustrate the Judgment of this Court. Mr. Raina submits that, in fact, the Medical Authority, taking the benefit of some error inadvertently crept in paras 7 and 9 of the Judgment, have already ousted the petitioner-society from the old shop which was allotted to it way back in 1993. 9. So far as error crept in paras 7 and 9 of the Judgment is concerned, Mrs. Goswami agrees to its rectification. Ordered accordingly. 10. Wherever number of members of the petitioner society is shown as 4 ex-servicemen, it shall be read as Membership of 119 ex-servicemen. Likewise, wherever it is mentioned that Hospital authorities have constructed three shops, it shall be read as one shop which has resulted into dismantling of tin shed. This rectification shall form part of the main Judgment. 11. Since the newly constructed shop has already been handed over to the petitioner-society and that the Medical Superintendent District Hospital, Udhampur has also assured to hand over all the medicines to the society today itself, the directions issued to respondents 2 and 3, in our Judgment dated 10-09-2012, in principle, stand complied with. 12. So far as entering into fresh agreement/terms and conditions is concerned, we do not deem it appropriate to pass any direction in this regard and leave it to the wisdom of the Medical Authority to look into it, expecting that the petitioner-society was already running the fair price shop since 1993 without any rent in terms of the old policy of the Government and that it is ex-servicemen Cooperative Consumer Society which is also contributing towards different welfare projects as stated by Mr. Raina at the Bar. 13. In case the terms and conditions entered into between the petitioner-society and the Medical Authority are not agreeable to the petitioner-society, it will always be open to it to throw challenge to the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 14. Raina at the Bar. 13. In case the terms and conditions entered into between the petitioner-society and the Medical Authority are not agreeable to the petitioner-society, it will always be open to it to throw challenge to the same before the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 14. Resultantly, Review (LPA) No. 10/2012 stands disposed