I.A. Ansari, J.

1. With the help of this review petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, read with Section 114 and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have sought for review of the judgment and order, dated 15-09-2006, passed in Civil Rule 400/1996, whereby the Notification, dated 15-12-1995, and the order, dated 24-07-1996, which stood impugned in the said writ petition, have been set aside and quashed. I have heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the review petitioners, and Mr. N. C. Pal, learned Senior Government counsel, appearing for the State respondents.

2. While considering the present review petition, it needs to be noted that, aggrieved by the judgment and order, which the petitioners seek to get reviewed, the petitioners had preferred an appeal, which gave rise to WA 66/2006, but the same was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by judgment and order, dated 14-11-2011.

3. The question, therefore, which arises for consideration, at the very threshold of this review petition, is: having already preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, whether it is still open to the appellants of the said appeal to seek review of not the judgment and order, dated 14-11-2011, passed in W.A. No. 66/2006, but of the judgment and order, dated 15-9-2006, passed in Civil Rule 400/1996, against which intra-Court appeal, as mentioned above, had been preferred and dismissed?

4. While considering this review petition, it is imperative to note that undisputedly, the principles, underlying Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, apply to writ petitions and writ appeals arising therefrom. An order can be reviewed, broadly speaking, by the self same Court subject to the condition that there is no appeal provided against the order, which is sought to get reviewed, or if right to appeal has been provided, no appeal has been preferred.

5. The philosophy, underlying the two conditions, indicated above, is really to maintain judicial discipline so that when a superior Court has deemed it fit to pass an order in the appeal, the same is the not set at naught by the Court against whose order the appeal had been preferred.

6. Thus, when an appeal is dismissed before the review petition is filed and/or decided, the Court, whose order is sought to get review, ceases to have jurisdiction to review such an order, for, the order to be reviewed, in such a situation, stands merged into the appellate order and does not survive independent of, and distinct from, the appellant order. This proposition of law does not remain in doubt if one carefully reads the principles, governing the jurisdiction of a Court to review its own order vis-a-vis the appellate orders, in such matters, as laid down by the Supreme Court, way back in 1964, in its decision in Thungabhadra Industries v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1372. The relevant observations made in Thungabhadra Industries (AIR 1964 SC 1372) (supra), are reproduced hereinbelow :

Order XLVII R. 1 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code permits an application for review being filed "from a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred. In the present case, it would be seen, on the date when the application for review was filed the appellant had not filed an appeal to this Court and therefore, the terms of O. XLVII R. 1(1) did not stand in the way of the petition for review being entertained. Learned counsel for the respondent did not contest this position. Nor could we read the judgment of the High Court as rejecting the petition for review on that ground. The terms of O. XLVII R. 1(1) are satisfied on the date when the application for review is filed. If on that date no appeal has been filed it is comptetent for the Court hearing the petition for review to dispose of the application on the merits notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, that if before the application