The narrow scope of review and the requirement for errors to be apparent on the face of the record were central legal principles established in the judgment.

JUDGMENT

Subramonium Prasad, J.

1. The instant LPA has been filed challenging the Order dated 27.11.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 37/2018, and Order dated 08.12.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in the Review Petition, being Review Petition No.27/2020, which was filed by the Appellant herein in W.P.(C) 37/2018.

2. Facts of the case reveal that the Appellant herein approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) 37/2018 with the following prayers:

"(i) Issue writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions to the Respondent.

(ii) Direct for CBI/Anti Corruption to investigate the case and vigilance Enquiry EDMC.

(iii) Direct the Vigilance department and the Zonal office to inform status of all complaints of the petitioner and the police and name of the officer responsible to intimate the status of the complaint after disposal.

(iv) Direct the respondent No.1 to take disciplinary and department action against the derelict officers Sh. Atique Ahmad, CVO. Sh.Rajesh Kumar, EE (B) Sh. Mandir and other concerned officers who have avoided to take action under DMC Act and against the accused persons under section 466A within the prescribed period defined under section 471 DMC Act and did not seal building under section 345A DMC Act."

3. It is stated in the Writ Petition that unauthorised construction for commercial purpose is being carried out on properties No. D-246 and D- 248, Dilshad Garden. It is also stated that there is a third property, namely, 245, Dilshad Garden, where also unauthorized construction is going on.

4. Status Report has been filed by the Corporation. It is stated in the Status Report that property No.D-246, Dilshad Garden, has been booked for unauthorised construction and a demolition order has also been passed on 25.04.2016 but the owners/occupiers have filed an appeal against the demolition order before the Appellate Tribunal Municipal Corporation of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellate Tribunal') and the Appellate Tribunal has passed an interim order in favour of the owners/occupiers. It is further stated in the Status Report that properties No.D-245 and D-248 near Mangal Bazar, Dilsahd Garden, Delhi do not exist and are not traceable.

5. After going through the material on record, the learned Single Judge, vide Order dated 27.11.2019, disposed of the Writ Petition by holding that the Respondents are taking steps to deal with the unauthorized construction on the properties in question. Learned Single Judge held that property No.D- 246 has already been booked for unauthorised construction and a demolition order has also been passed which is the subject matter of appeal pending before the Appellate Tribunal and the Respondents were directed to abide by the directions as may be passed in the said appeal. As far as properties No. D-245 and D-248, Mangal Bazar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi, are concerned, the learned Single Judge gave liberty to the Appellant herein to make a representation to the Corporation by giving full details of the location of the said two properties and further directed the Corporation that in case such a representation is made, the Corporation shall deal with the same in accordance with law and take appropriate steps.

6. The Appellant filed a Review Petition, being Review Petition No.27/2020 challenging the Order dated 27.11.2019 by contending that the Corporation misled this Court by stating that properties bearing No. D-245 and 248, Dilshad Garden near Mangal Bazar, Dilshad Garden, Delhi do not exist and are not traceable. It is stated in the Review Petition that RTI information reveals that there are two properties, i.e. D-246 and 246 (part). It has been contended that properties No. D-245 and D-248 pertains to a part of the property No.D-246.

7. The Review Petition has been disposed of vide Order dated 08.12.2022. A perusal of the Order dated 08.12.2022 shows that when a specific query was put to the Appellant h