ORDER : Respondent had challenged the Excise Policy Announcements which stipulated the levy of additional fee and penalty, whenever the quantity of liquor manufactured and/or sold, fell short of the minimum guaranteed quota fixed every year for the licensees, three groups of persons, namely, manufacturers/distillers/bottlers, wholesalers and retailers. 2. The Coordinate Bench of this Court, after hearing the arguments, concluded as under:- “(A) The writ petitions filed by the manufacturers and wholesalers are allowed and condition Nos.10.28(A) (8) and 10.29, insofar as they impose the burden of additional duty and penalty for failure to lift the minimum guaranteed quota are set aside, however, with a rider that they shall pay the license fee for the entire minimum guaranteed quota; and (B) The writ petitions filed by the retailers are partly allowed and condition No.4.3 of the policy announcements for all the 4 years namely 2013-14 to 2016-17 are set aside, with a rider that the retailers will be liable to pay the license fee for the entire minimum guaranteed quota together with the additional fee as stipulated in Rule 35-A (22) of the Himachal Pradesh Liquor License Rules, 1986 for all the years during which the said rule is in operation. 3. Mr. Ajay Vaidya, learned Senior Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the order dated 06.09.2019, was liable to be reviewed, as patent error which had crept in the order was liable to be corrected. He has submitted that the relevant provision of Section 27 of the Himachal Pradesh Excise Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ in short), had not been duly considered by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. Reliance had been placed on the decisions of Coordinate Bench of this Court, in case titled Ram Lal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 21.12.2007, in CWP No.2160 of 2007 and in case titled Himalayan Wine and others versus State of Himachal Pradesh, dated 28.06.2016, in CWP No.1525 of 2016, but the same have not been taken in consideration by this Court while passing the order dated 06.09.2019. 4. After hearing learned Senior Additional Advocate General and going through the order dated 06.09.2019, which was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that the Coordinate Bench, while passing the said order, has considered the implication of Section 27 of the Act. 4. After hearing learned Senior Additional Advocate General and going through the order dated 06.09.2019, which was passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, we are of the opinion that the Coordinate Bench, while passing the said order, has considered the implication of Section 27 of the Act. Whether the appreciation of the provision of Section 27 of the Act has been rightly done by the Coordinate Bench or not, cannot be gone into, while hearing the review petitions. 5. The fact that some of the judgments, cited by the review petitioners, had not been considered by the Coordinate Bench at the time of passing the order dated 06.09.2019, also cannot be taken in consideration while hearing the review petition. 6. The review petitioners/State could have approached the higher Court by way of an appeal, in case, it was aggrieved by the order passed by the Coordinate Bench. 7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, no ground for review of the order dated 06.09.2019, is made out. Hence, the petition is dismissed. 9. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.