JUDGMENT : Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ petition, the present petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : - (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus to read down the constitutional validity of Area Based exemption vide notification No. 50/2003 CE dated 10.06.2003 (as amended); i.e. to confer the benefit of Central Excise exemption to the industrial unit of the petitioner, established in spot zoned industrial area, i.e., khasra no. 294, Village Bhamrola, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar; in line with the fiscal incentive in para no. 3.1(i) of the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure No. 4), issued by respondent No. 2; and to hold, that the benefit of Central Excise exemption for a period of ten years from May 2005 to April 2015, flows directly from the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2003 and its Annexure 1, appended to the Office Memorandum; and to hold that the Notification No. 50/2003 CE dated 10.06.2003 (as amended) (Annexure No. 8); issued by respondent No. 3; shall not come in the way to deny the substantial benefit of Central Excise exemption to the unit of the petitioner; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other direction; to hold that the benefit of Central Excise exemption is flowing qua the coverage of the khasra no. 294, Village Bhamrola, Tehsil Kichha of the petitioner, under fiscal incentive promised at serial no. 3.1(i) alongwith Annexure 1, i.e., Tehsil Kichha covered at serial no. 1 to the said Annexure; and to hold that the claim of the petitioner for exemption flows from the Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2003, which is a substantive provision and non-inclusion of the khasra no. in Central Excise notification no. 50/2003 CE dated 10.06.2003; is merely procedural and shall not come into the way of the petitioner; and to hold that the respondents cannot change their stand or alter their position, after declaration of Office Memorandum dated 07.01.2003, which is the Central Industrial policy, motivating the petitioner to establish the new unit; (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari, quashing the order-in-original no. V(15)/Adj/M-IV/Sai Auto/RPM/2011/14/320 dated 08.02.2022, passed by the Additional Commissioner, CGST, Dehradun (respondent No. 5) (Annexure No. 1); and to hold that this adjudication order, is non-est in law; and / or in the alternative, to direct the learned Commissioner of Appeals, CGST, Dehradun, to keep the hearings of the aforesaid appeals (along with disposal of the waiver of pre-deposit i.e. stay application) in abeyance till decision of the Division Bench of this Hon’ble High Court in the present writ petition, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter in dispute. (iv) Allow as an ad-interim relief, that till pendency of the writ petition, before this Hon’ble Court, the demand, penalty and interest, as impugned in the adjudication order dated 08.02.2022 (Annexure No. 1); the said demand, be kept in abeyance; (v) Issue any other writ, order or direction and grant any other consequential relief, which this Hon’ble Court shall deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. However, in course of argument, Mr. P.R. Mullick, the learned counsel for the petitioner, would seek intervention of the Court only with respect to prayer No. (ii), i.e., to include khasra no. 294, situated at Village Bhamrola, Tehsil Kichha, District Udham Singh Nagar, in the list. 4. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for the Excise Department, on the other hand, would argue that the matter has already been set at rest by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide common judgment and order dated 11.08.2015, passed in Writ Petition (M/B) No. 01 of 2015 and connected Writ Petition (M/B) No. 02 of 2015, wherein the same issue has been discussed. 5. The relevant portion extracted in paragraph 27 of the aforementioned judgment and order reads as under : “Mr. Shohit Saharia, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Excise Department and Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Union of India, would submit before us that things are not as the petitioner has put it. It may be true that recommendations were made by the Secretary, Industrial Department, dated 29.06.2004 and 20.09.2004, recommending the inclusion of the petitioner’s khasra numbers. But, thereafter, there was a high-level meeting, which went into the issue. There were number of requests for inclusion. The matter had to be streamlined. There is a case for Mr. It may be true that recommendations were made by the Secretary, Industrial Department, dated 29.06.2004 and 20.09.2004, recommending the inclusion of the petitioner’s khasra numbers. But, thereafter, there was a high-level meeting, which went into the issue. There were number of requests for inclusion. The matter had to be streamlined. There is a case for Mr. Shobhit Saharia that the effect of granting an exemption is that it deprives the Government of its revenue to the extent of the concession granted. It is pointed out that, in the said meeting, certain decisions were taken. We may refer to the same, which were made available to this Court as ordered by this Court. ***** 6. Then the Division Bench went on to decide the question. In paragraph 37 of the aforementioned judgment and order it has been held as under : “We notice that that petitioner had approached earlier seeking a prayer for inclusion of his khasra numbers in the Notification. We have noticed from the judgment, which we have extracted, that the Court was not inclined to grant the benefit. In fact, the Court disposed of the writ petition in terms of the decision in a writ petition filed by another unit, i.e. M/s Sant Steel and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. We have referred to the said judgment also. The Court proceeded to take the view that, even if there is a mistake in not including certain khasra numbers, the Court would be encroaching on the policy matters, if it was to be persuaded to issue a direction to include specified khasra numbers. The Court, further, discountenanced the plea of discrimination. Thereafter, the Court closed the matter. Finally, the Court, however, proceeded to direct that the decision on the representation be made known to the petitioner therein. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, as we have already noticed, was also disposed of on the same lines. The effect of the same would be that the prayer for inclusion of the khasra numbers of the petitioner must be treated as having been turned down. The earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, as we have already noticed, was also disposed of on the same lines. The effect of the same would be that the prayer for inclusion of the khasra numbers of the petitioner must be treated as having been turned down. A relief if it is not granted or if the judgment is silent regarding a particular relief; it is, both, in accordance with the principle of res judicata enumerated in Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also in accordance with general principle of res judicata, which, undoubtedly, applies to the writ petitions also; it must be taken to have been impliedly refused and the bar of res judicata applies. In this case, the reasoning given by the Court would leave us in no doubt that the Court was not inclined to grant the relief as sought for. In fact, the Court had disposed of the writ petition in terms of the earlier judgment, wherein the Court had closed the matter.” 7. It is apparent from the record that the Court has proceeded to take a view that, even if there is a mistake in not including certain khasra numbers, the Court would be encroaching on the policy matters, if it was to be persuaded to issue a direction to include specified khasra numbers. 8. It is apparent from prayer No. (ii) in the prayer clause of the writ petition that the petitioner says that exclusion of a particular khasra in the Excise Notification No. 50/2003 CE dated 10.06.2003 is merely procedural, still, it touches upon the policy of the State Government and, hence, should not be rightly interfered by the Court exercising review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Therefore, we are not inclined to admit the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed, accordingly. 10. Stay application (IA No. 01 of 2022) also stands disposed of.