Northwest Social and Civic Club, Inc. Appellant held a license to sell alcoholic beverages on the premises of its nightclub, which features adult entertainment. After notice and a hearing before the License Review Board of the City of Atlanta Board, the Mayor denied Appellant’s applications for renewal of its liquor license, based on the Board’s recommendation and evidence of several violations of the City’s Alcoholic Beverage Code. Appellant filed a petition for writs of mandamus and certiorari in superior court against the Mayor and the City Appellees. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the superior court granted Appellees’ motion and denied Appellant’s. Appellant filed an application for discretionary appeal which this Court denied on the merits on January 6, 2003. Appellant also filed this direct appeal from the same superior court order. Unlike applications for interlocutory appeal, applications “for leave to appeal a final judgment in cases subject to appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 shall be granted when . . . reversible error appears to exist . . . .” Supreme Court Rule 34 1. See also C & S Nat. Bank v. Rayle , 246 Ga. 727, 731 273 SE2d 139 1980. Compare Rule 31 interlocutory appeal. Therefore, “in reviewing discretionary applications for appeals, our rules require us to grant the application when the trial court commits reversible error . . . . Cit.” O S Advertising Co. of Ga. v. Rubin , 267 Ga. 723, 724 1 482 SE2d 295 1997. See also Harper v. Harper , 259 Ga. 246 378 SE2d 673 1989. Thus, when this Court examines a request for a discretionary appeal, it acts in an error-correcting mode such that a denial of the application is on the merits. Indeed, the order denying the application is res judicata with respect to the substance of the requested review. McLemore v. Stephenson , 181 Ga. App. 828, 829 354 SE2d 17 1987. See also Martin v. State , 185 Ga. App. 145, 146 1 363 SE2d 765 1987.
