Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors on the record and does not allow for rehearing or re-evaluation of evidence already presented, emphasizing that arguments based on potential alternative interpretations are inadmissible.

JUDGMENT :

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, J.

1. Although the petitioners in the present Review Petition have assailed the final judgment of this Court dated 02.05.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023, however, prayer is being made by the petitioners attempting to explore the following relief:-

“(a) allow the Review Petition;

(b) Restore the original writ petition and to re- hear the original writ petition taking into consideration the grounds mentioned in the review petition;

(c) And pass any other/further Order(s) as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. Heard Mrs. Pami Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.1.

3. The main ground on the basis of which the Review Petition has been instituted, is that this Court, while passing the judgment under challenge has relied upon a fabricated set of documents furnished before it, which led to the error apparent on record.

Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners emphatically contended that, in fact, a fabricated and parallel file was created and the said fabricated documents were placed before this Court to persuade this Court to pass the impugned judgment. Had the Court looked into the original record; the result of the writ petition would have been different. By taking us to the "so called fabricated records" placed with this Review Petition at Annexure-16 series, Mrs. Rath, has pointed out the following error stated to be apparently crept on record, which is reproduced herein under:

 “The Order dated 04.04.2025 in the present writ petition indicates that the Court had taken note of the original and fabricated records under Sealed Cover. But it has referred to the fabricated records which do not contain the real facts.

 Because of which it missed out the Order dated 09.09.2021 found in the original order sheet of the suo motu writ petition disposing of the suo motu writ petition No.7943/2021 wherein it was clearly indicated by the three Judges that all the three orders were dated 24.02.2021 i.e. the Order of the Hon'ble Presiding Judge, the dissenting order of the Hon'ble 2nd Judge and the combined order referring the matter to the then Hon'ble Chief Justice were unsigned even as on 09.09.2021.

 Had the same been taken note of which is a judicial finding, the Court could not have relied upon Order dated 07.04.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.11802 of 2020 or any other order to come to the findings on facts.

 In any view of the matter the finding of the Three-Judge Bench was binding on the Writ Court.”

In view of the aforementioned highlighted error, Mrs. Rath, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the writ petition needs to be re-heard and re-appreciated with reference to the sequence of events in the light of the original record pertaining to the registration of the Suo Motu Proceeding.

4. Before adverting to the various documents sought to be relied upon by the learned Senior Advocate stating those to be the original record, it would be apt to look into the proceeding of this Court in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023, which eventually led to passing of the final judgment on 02.05.2025. On 31.01.2025, this Court has passed the following order:

“After hearing the matter for some time, we feel it necessary to peruse all the original records in connection with case.

Let the learned counsel for the State keep ready with all the original records in connection with this case in a sealed cover and produce the same for our perusal as and when requir