JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the applicants, who by means of this application has prayed for review of the judgment and order dated 18.08.2016 passed in WP(C)5660/2009. Also heard Shri J. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, KAAC, Shri M.K. Boro, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 9, 14, 29, 37, 44, 47, 48, 60, 75, 77, 80 & 81, Shri M. Agarwalla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 10, 17, 27, 34, 49, 52, 57, 59, 65, 67, 73 & 78, Shri M. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 12, 13, 15, 21, 43, 46, 50, 51, 53, 55, 66, 68, 74, 82, 83, 85 & 86, and Shri P. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 22, 24, 28, 31, 42 & 63.

2. Two applicants have preferred this review against the aforesaid judgment as mentioned. The principal ground of review is that a particular point urged in the writ petition was not considered at all while the judgment dated 18.08.2016 was delivered. It is contended that there were a bunch of writ petitions which were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 18.08.2016.

3. Shri P.K.R. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that a ca