A review petition cannot be an appeal in disguise and can only be entertained on specific grounds such as discovery of new evidence or an error apparent on the face of the record.

JUDGMENT :

The present review petition has been filed for reviewing the order/judgment dated 23.03.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1634 of 2020, whereby the respondent authorities were directed to measure the additional work executed by the writ petitioner and to determine the amount to be paid to him for the said work with a further direction to complete all these exercise within a period of three months from the date of the said order.

2. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned AAG-III appearing on behalf of the review petitioners submits that since no administrative approval of the additional work said to have been executed by the writ petitioner was taken from the Secretary, Building Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, no payment can be made to him for executing the same. It is also submitted that the work at the residence of the then Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro was done by the petitioner without awarding any contract in his favour and without following due procedure for the same as provided under Jharkhand Public Works Department Code. The execution of the said work by the petitioner (if at all) was in complete violation of Rule 158 of the Jharkhand Public Works Department Code.

3. Learned AAG-III, while referring to paragraph-10 of the order/judgment dated 23.03.2021 passed by this Court, submits that it was observed inter alia that on the one hand, the payment of the petitioner, who had already executed the additional work was not released on the ground of non-granting of administrative approval and on the other hand, the same work was allotted to a new tenderer, who had nothing to do with the said work. In fact, the new tender issued for the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro was for some other work and only part of the alleged additional work claimed to have been done by the writ petitioner had overlapped.

4. Learned AAG-III further submits that this Court while passing the order dated 23.03.2021 has erred in observing that there was no specific denial of the fact by the respondents that the petitioner had done additional work at the residence of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro. It is an error apparent on the face of record considering that the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner had though stated in paragraph-16 of the writ petition that the said work was already completed by him, yet the said statement was categorically denied and disputed in paragraph-28 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 (the petitioner no. 2 herein). It is also submitted that even in paragraph-29 of the counter affidavit, it was specifically stated that there was no such admission of the work said to have been done by the writ petitioner at the residence of the Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro.

5. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the content of the review petition.

6. Before appreciating the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, it would be relevant to go through the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court explaining the conditions/eventualities under which a review petition may be entertained.

7. In the case of “Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aibam Pishak Sharma & Ors.”, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:

“3. ……… It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on