IMPORTANT POINT
A review petition must comply with specific procedural requirements, and failure to do so renders it non-maintainable. A review is only permissible in exceptional circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence or a clear error on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.

1. The instant application has been filed for review of an order dated 12.05.2015 passed by this Court in WP(C)/3165/2010. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition interfering with the claim made by the Central Excise Department from the petitioner for an amount of Rs.7,54,700/- (Rupees Seven Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Seven Hundred). It was also made clear in the order that if the excise duty leviable was already realized from the petitioner, the same was to be refunded by the respondent no. 1 (in the writ petition) within a period of one month. The respondent no. 1 is the Numaligarh Refinery Limited which is the applicant no. 1 in the present Review Petition.

2. I have heard Shri R.S. Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants. I have also heard Shri H. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 (writ petitioner).

3. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the excise duty was already deposited to the Central Excise Department and therefore, the direction to the applicants to refund the amount is liable to be reviewed. He also submits that the applicants were deprived of an adequate opportunity to defend their case before the learned Single Judge. He submits that the learned Single Judge could not be apprised of the fact that the amount was already deposited with the Central Excise Department and certain amount was also refunded. He accordingly submits that the present is a fit case for exercise of the powers of review by this Court.

4. On the other hand, Shri H. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 1 raises a preliminary objection questioning the maintainability of the review petition. He submits that the application does not state under what provision of law the review petition has been filed. It is further submitted that the present application is for review of an order passed in a writ petition and the same is governed by the Rules regarding filing of review under the Gauhati High Court Rules. He submits that the present application does not contain any grounds for review nor does it contain a certificate by the concerned Advocate certifying that the grounds are good grounds of review.

5. Shri Sharma, the learned counsel has also drawn the attention of this Court to the affidavit accompanying the review petition which is executed by one Devashish Choudhury terming himself to be the applicant and without describing his position in the Numaligarh Refinery Limited.

6. Apart from the issue of maintainability, Shri Sharma, the learned counsel further submits that the scope of a Review Court is absolutely limited and it is only under certain exceptional circumstances that a review application may be entertained. He submits that there is no error apparent on the face of the records in the order dated 12.05.2015 which could be demonstrated. He further submits that there is no discovery of new facts which were not within the knowledge of the applicants at the time of hearing of the case and the reasons shown are not at all sufficient.

7. Shri Mishra, the learned counsel for the applicants has however referred to an order passed in a connected contempt petition being Con.Cas(C)/319/2016. This Court vide order dated 03.05.2023 had observed that the matter would be heard on merit by keeping the issue of maintainability open.

8. The rival submission made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

9. There is no dispute to the fact regarding the powers of a writ court to review its own orders. The Gauhati High Court Rules contains a specific Chapter on Review. Paragraph 1 of Chapter X lays down that the provisions of Chapter IV would be applicable to an application for review. Paragraph 2 lays down that every application for review should have the concise grounds and should contain a Certificate by an advocate of the Court simila