JUDGMENT :

Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.

1. Heard Sri Javvaji Sarath Chandra, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and Ms. M. Iswarya, Advocate, representing Sri S. Vivek Chandrasekhar, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

2. Review WPMP No. 48423 of 2014 is filed in WP No. 7331 of 2003 dismissed vide judgment, dated 21.06.2013.

3. The writ petitioner, in the Writ Petition No. 7331 of 2003, is the review petitioner.

4. 10.00 Acres of land at IDA Aganampudi, was allotted to the petitioner-M/s. Coastal Carbons Limited, by the 1st respondent-Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure Corporation Limited ['APIICL'], for setting up of a Low Ash Metallurgical Coke on Outright Sale Basis ['ORS']. A Sale Agreement for sale, dated 24.11.1998, was executed and the possession of the allotted land was handed over to the review petitioner. The Sale Agreement was cancelled vide Proceedings No. 1113/CLL/IDA/DGPD/ZO/VSP/94, dated 31.03.2003, for violating the terms and conditions of the sale agreement by not implementing the project within the stipulated time duly utilizing the purpose for which it was allotted. The amount deposited by the petitioner was also forfeited.

5. Challenging the order of cancellation, dated 31.03.2003, the petitioner filed WP No. 7331 of 2003 which was dismissed on 21.06.2013.

6. One WP No. 7332 of 2003 was filed by a different petitioner M/s. ECI Engineering and Construction Co. Ltd., against the cancellation of allotment vide letter, dated 31.03.2003, also forfeiting the amounts paid by that petitioner. The WP No. 7332 of 2003 was dismissed vide judgment, dated 30.11.2012.

7. The order dated 31.03.2003, as challenged in present WP No. 7331 of 2003, was identical to the order dated 31.03.2003 as challenged in WP No. 7332 of 2003.

8. The present writ petition was also dismissed.

9. The petitioner filed WA No. 983 of 2014, which was dismissed as being 'withdrawn', however, with liberty granted to the petitioner/appellant to proceed in accordance with law, as may be advised, vide order, dated 01.07.2014.

10. Thereafter, the Review WPMP No. 48423 of 2014 was filed.

11. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner is that, the 1st respondent Corporation issued a Circular No. 352/DW/2007, dated 17.01.2007, and pursuant thereto the petitioner filed an application, dated 23.03.2007, to the Zonal Manager, APIICL, Visakhapatnam. Referring to Clause-IX, it was submitted that by the said Circular, a scheme, valid upto 31.03.2007, was introduced, allowing the land occupiers, who had not started their industry, to pay an amount of penalty and start the activities to put up the plant.

12. He submitted that the aforesaid Circular and the application were misplaced in the Office of the review petitioner and as such could not be filed in the writ petition, though these were necessary material. He submitted that, the petitioner discovered those material which could not be produced even after exercise of due diligence. Consequently, in his submission, the judgment deserves to be reviewed in view of Order XLVTI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ['C.P.C.'] which provides for 'review', inter alia, on the discovery of new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence could not be produced at the time the order/decree was passed.

13. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the Circular, dated 17.01.2007, was within the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner had filed representation, dated 23.03.2007. So, it is not a case of discovery of a new matter. She further submitted that, in view of Clause (X) of the Circular, d