JUDGMENT Sangeet Lodha, J. - This intra-court appeal is directed against order dated 27.9.18 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to the respondents to approve location of shop of country liquor in Ward No. 36 of Municipal Corporation, Bikaner in favour of the petitioner and cancellation of approved location of the private respondent in the said ward has been disposed of as having become infructuous. 2. The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as under: "Mr. Ladrecha by inadvertance, could not place Collectors report on record on 29.8.2018, he has furnished the requisite report today which is taken on record. The disputed shop in relation whereto the instant writ petition was filed, has been demolished by the UIT. Thus, apparently the controversy which was raised by the petitioner in this writ petition does not survive any longer. Hence, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. In case the petitioner has any pending grievance with the department, he would be at liberty to agitate the same as per law. The stay petition is also disposed of. No order as to cost." 3. The facts relevant are that the appellant was allocated the liquor license for the year 2018-19 for the Country Liquor Group Ward Nos. 36, 37 & 38 of the municipal area of Bikaner City. There were two shops in the Group and one shop of the appellant was running from 1.4.18 on the previously approved location in Ward No. 36 at Rani Baazar. The appellant submitted location for second shop before the District Excise Officer, Bikaner on 24.3.18. The application being not accompanied by requisite documents, was returned by the Department to the appellant. The appellant instead of submitting the application for said location alongwith requisite documents before the District Excise Officer submitted another location before the Additional Commissioner Excise, Bikaner, on 24.4.18. On 7.5.18, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court seeking directions as aforesaid, raising the grievance that while the appellants application for approval of the location is pending, the respondents have processed the application of respondent No. 5 in the location which forms part of Ward No. 36, whereas he had not applied for the same. On 7.5.18, the appellant preferred writ petition before this Court seeking directions as aforesaid, raising the grievance that while the appellants application for approval of the location is pending, the respondents have processed the application of respondent No. 5 in the location which forms part of Ward No. 36, whereas he had not applied for the same. After filing of the writ petition, the application of the appellant for approval of the location was referred to the Excise Inspector, Bikaner City to do the needful. On the recommendation of the Excise Inspector, the location was approved, however, vide notice dated 24.5.18, the appellant was informed that the location has been approved inadvertently and as a matter of fact at different time different locations were submitted by him and thus, the Department has been misguided. The appellant was directed to submit the explanation in this regard. As a matter of fact, the shop in respect whereof approval was sought by the appellant was in Ward No. 25 and not in Ward No. 36, 37 & 38. While the dispute in this regard pursuant to the notice issued as aforesaid was pending, the Department of Excise sought report from Municipal Corporation, Bikaner. The Municipal Corporation, Bikaner reported that the shop of the appellant is located in Ward No. 36, which was a report contrary to the earlier report. 4. On 7.8.18, the learned Single Judge for resolution of the dispute in just and fair manner passed the order as follow: "The parties to the litigation at hand are at loggerheads regarding the demarcation/extent of the Wards Nos. 25 and 36 of the Bikaner city. Even the officials of the Excise Department seem to be confused in this regard. Thus, in order to resolve the controversy fully in a just and fair manner, the District Collector, Bikaner is directed to forward a detailed report to this court in sealed cover setting out distinct demarcation and description of the areas covered by the Wards No. 25 and 36 with pinpointed landmarks so that the controversy can be resolved beyond all manner of doubt. List on 17.08.2018. The personal presence of the Additional Commissioner, Excise is dispensed with for the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the District Collector, Bikaner." 5. List on 17.08.2018. The personal presence of the Additional Commissioner, Excise is dispensed with for the next date of hearing. A copy of this order be sent forthwith to the District Collector, Bikaner." 5. In compliance of the directions above, learned AAG appearing for the District Collector submitted the report, copy whereof was directed to be supplied to the counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5. On 4.9.18, the Court directed counsel appearing for the Department of Excise to instruct the District Excise Officer, Bikaner to approve the petitioners shop within next three days. The order passed was not complied with and therefore vide order dated 24.9.18, the District Excise Officer was directed to remain present before the Court to show cause as to why appropriate action should not be directed against him. Thereafter, by the order impugned the writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge as having become infructuous observing that the disputed shop in relation whereto the writ petition is filed, has been demolished by the UIT. 6. In our considered opinion, on account of demolition of the shop by the UIT, on account of alleged encroachment, the right of the appellant to submit the fresh location for approval did not stand closed inasmuch as the license granted in his favour was operative during the financial year 2018-19 i.e. upto 31st March, 2019. However, by way of reply to the special appeal filed on behalf of the respondents, it is brought on record that after 5.9.18, the appellant did not submit any location for the approval. However he continued to operate one shop for Group Wards Nos. 36, 37 & 38. 7. It is noticed that aggrieved by the order dated 27.9.18 passed by the learned Single Judge, the present intra-court appeal was filed by the appellant on 27.11.18 i.e. after a lapse of two months. If the appellant was aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single and was desirous of approval of a new location of the shop, nothing prevented him from filing the appeal with utmost expedition. Surprisingly even after filing of the appeal, the appellant did not remove the defects pointed out by the Registry till 21.1.19 and therefore, the appeal could not be listed for admission. Surprisingly even after filing of the appeal, the appellant did not remove the defects pointed out by the Registry till 21.1.19 and therefore, the appeal could not be listed for admission. The appeal was listed before the Court for admission on 29.1.19 but nobody was present on behalf of the appellant and therefore, it was adjourned for four weeks. Later, the appellant preferred an application on 1.2.19 for preponement of date of hearing, which was dismissed by this Court on 11.2.19. Thereafter, the matter was listed on the date fixed on 27.2.19. After hearing, notices were issued to the respondents, which was accepted by the learned counsel appearing for the Department of Excise. Before the matter could be finally heard by this Court, the period of the contract awarded has expired and thus, now it has become fate accomplie and the question of issuing directions to the respondents for approval of a new location for establishment of the shop does not arise and virtually the special appeal has rendered infructuous. In view of factual position noticed above, apparently, the appellant was negligent in pursuing the appeal filed before this Court. That apart, notwithstanding the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge as having become infructuous, the petitioner was well within his right to make an appropriate application seeking approval of the fresh location but he failed to do so. 8. In this view of the matter, the appellant is not entitled for any indulgence by this Court. 9. The special appeal is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, the appellant shall be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available under the law in respect of his grievances including for loss any caused to him on account of non-approval of location of the shop by the respondents. No order as to costs.