JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

By medium of this review petition, the petitioner seeks review of final judgment of this Court dated 21st of October, 2019, passed in WP(C) No. 3036/2019, whereby the petition of the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Mr Ratanpuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has filed the instant review petition against the judgment aforesaid on the ground that in the aforesaid judgment, this Court in Paragraph No. 02 on Page No. 2, has observed that the inquiry is pending against the petitioner, when fact of the matter is that enquiry, has since been concluded and the committee has submitted its report as well.

4. Heard Mr Ratanpuri, the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings on record and considered the matter.

5. What requires to be stated, at the outset, is that in the instant review petition, the review petitioner has touched the merits of the case, which, in a review petition, is unwarranted as per well settled position of law. The grounds urged in the review petition have already been decided and findings returned thereon by the Court and, if the petitioner was aggrieved of the said findings, he ought to have availed the remedy under law for challenging the same in appropriate Court. In fact, the instant review petition, on grounds enumerated therein, appears to be a disguised appeal. The grounds taken by the review petitioner are either that the findings recorded by the Court are not legally tenable, or that the same are perverse, or that the same are unacceptable. A judgment may be wrong, erroneous, incorrect, perverse, legally untenable, etc. etc., but, the only course available for the aggrieved party is to go in appeal the said judgment. Such grounds do not constitute errors of fact or of law on the face of the record as would call for a review.

6. A review cannot also be used as a tool for changing the opinion/ view of the Court. In a review petition, it is only an error, apparent on the face of the record, which can be considered and gone into by the Court. It is not open to the Court, dealing with review of its decision, to re-appreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at, on appreciation of evidence and after hearing the rival parties, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. So far as the grievance of the review petitioner on merits of the case is concerned, virtually the review petitioner seeks the same relief which he had sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer has been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is well settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review has to be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection, that too, only in exceptional cases.

7. Law on the subject is no more res integra. The Apex Court of the country, in case titled ‘Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Ors.’ reported in ‘(2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 320’, while dealing with a similar issue, at paragraph Nos. 13, 15 to 19, laid down as under:

“13.Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This Court, in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India & Ors. [1980 (Supp) SCC 562], held as under:

“12.A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that materi