Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot introduce new arguments not previously raised.

Order :

(Parth Prateem Sahu, J.)

1. Petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review of the order passed by this Court in WPC No.3985 of 2023 dated 11.09.2023 inter-alia on the ground pleaded therein.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that against the order passed in the writ petition, petitioner has filed writ appeal bearing W.A. No.448 of 2023 and during the course of arguments, writ appeal was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file review application considering the ground raised that this Court has not considered the point of limitation taken and raised before this Court. He contended that Regulation 30 which is extracted in para -8 of the order dated 11.09.2023 specifically mentions the review application to be filed within a period of 30 days of the order. He also pointed out that specific ground is also raised in the writ petition in Para 8.5. He contended that though there is specific pleading in para 8.5, this Court while deciding this writ petition escaped consideration of the important ground of limitation raised for consideration and further that respondents have not filed any application for condonation of delay along with the application for review before the authority. As the application for review was barred by limitation, therefore, there is error apparent on the face of order passed in writ petition. Hence, the application be allowed.

3. Learned counsel for respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for review petitioner and would submit that arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner in the review petition has been discussed in Para-2 and 3 of the impugned order. In the said order, in the arguments there is no discussion with respect to the ground of limitation raised by learned counsel for petitioner at the time of oral argument raised before this Court while arguing in the writ petition. Hence, the review is not permissible on the new ground and review cannot be entertained as an appeal. She also submits that from the argument considered by this Court and mentioned in para 2 and 3 of the order impugned, there is no mention even if the pleadings is there in the writ petition with respect to the ground of limitation if not pressed.

4. I have heard learned counsel for parties, perused the pleadings made in the writ petition, and the arguments raised by learned counsel for petitioner and respondents, order passed in the writ petition and further the ground taken by learned counsel for petitioner in the writ appeal from the copy of writ appeal placed by learned counsel for petitioner before this Court for perusal.

5. Perusal of writ petition would show that in para 8.5 of writ petition it is mentioned that “It is pertinent to mention here that even no application for condonation of delay has been filed by respondents while preferring review application”. There is no pleading in ground that review petition is barred by limitation and could not have been considered on merits. The ground to challenge the order impugned in the writ petition is raised in para -9, in which there is no specific ground raised by the writ petitioner with respect to the limitation as it is being raised in the review petition. The arguments, which was advanced by both the sides, before this Court while hearing writ petition has been written in para 2, 3 & 4 of the order impugned. From the contents of the para 2 & 3 of the order passed in writ petition dated 11.09.2023 it is reflecting that during the course of arguments counsel for writ petitioner has not raised the ground that review application was barred by limitation and no application for condonation of delay is filed. Perusal of the ground raised in the writ appeal which is filed immediately after passing of the impugned order in the writ petition also does not specifically mention that ground of limitation is argued at the time of hearing of the writ petition, before the writ Court but writ Court has not considered that arguments while pass