The main legal point established is the limited scope of review, the need for an error apparent on the face of the record, and the inability to reargue decided questions.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved of the judgment dated 23.02.2023, the review petitioners have filed this Petition asserting that this Court while passing the impugned judgment had not considered the judgment dated 10.02.2023 passed by this Court earlier in CRTP No. 3/2016 titled “Kamal Rometra Vs Dr. Ab Kabir” which was to be followed under the “Doctrine of Binding Principle” as the review petitioners have been discriminated.

2. It has been pleaded that the tentative list of Kashmiri Pandits who had become prey of target killings in Kashmir during 2022-23 is very long and the threats given by TRF to migrant Kashmiri Pandits and Bureaucrats cannot be ignored as the same can be collected from ADG/Security and CID J&K(UT) and without asking for this information, rejecting the review petition will again cause of miscarriage of justice and petitioners right to life will become causality; that the review petitioners have based the aforesaid assertions as an error apparent on the face of record which has allegedly caused manifest injustice to them.

3. Pursuance to notice, the respondents filed parawise reply/objections to the review petition asserting therein that the review petitioners have tried to project the bad image of the present security scenario of the province of Kashmir; that presently all over security situation is comparatively good as many national and international events have recently been organized in the Kashmir province, while many such events are underway; that moreover, in case petitioners feel any evident threat from any corner, that much have been agitated before the trial Court for further directions to the concerned quarters but same has not been done by the petitioners, so facts portrayed by accused/petitioners in this petition are baseless and on this count alone the petition on hands deserves rejection. It has been further pleaded that the accused/petitioners have preferred the instant review petition on the same grounds which have already been considered and adjudicated upon and ultimately disallowed/dismissed by this Court being devoid of any merit and alleged that filing of the instant review petition is only aimed to delay the process of law and to frustrate the dispensation of justice against the accused public servants who had caused huge loss to State Exchequer illegally under a well knit conspiracy hatched with accused beneficiary. It has been also pleaded that transfer of any other criminal case from one province to another province previously cannot be made general rule to other cases also because it will open up the pathway for rest of the similarly situated cases in UT of J&K in future and such situation will definitely effect the outcome of trials of such cases pending before the concerned trial Courts; that the order dated 23.02.2023 sought to be reviewed has been passed by this Court after considering all the relevant facts/aspects of the case on hand and are not in any way against the basic tenants of law and finally it was prayed that the petition be dismissed.

4. Mr. S K Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, vehemently, argued that all the judgments/orders passed by the Co-ordinate Benches of this Court based on similar ground i.e. threat perception were not considered by this Court while passing the impugned judgment, as such, the same is discriminative, violative of law and apparent error on the face of it, which has caused miscarriage of justice. It is clear from the judgment impugned that neither the response was filed by the respondents in Court but only copy was given to the counsel for the petitioners, further the detailed report and scanned record of the case was also not ever called from the trial Court of Baramulla, it amounts to miscarriage of justice, therefore, petitioners seek review of the said judgment in the interests of justice and prayed that the petitioners be given another chance to seek justice and to rectify the impugned judgment as the Hon’ble Supreme Court