The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review, allowing review only on specific grounds and emphasizing that review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

Rajiv Sharma and Rakesh Srivastava,JJ.

Heard Mr. U.C.Singh, learned Counsel for the review applicant and perused the records.

2. The review petitioner has filed the instant review petition, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 6.2.2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 8163 of 2013 (M/B), whereby the writ petition has been disposed of with the following directions :

"Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and also without entering into the merits of the case, we provide that in case the petitioner prefers a fresh representation, raising his grievances, to the newly constituted Committee within a period of fifteen days from today, the Committee will look into the matter and pass appropriate order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, say, within a period of three months from the date of receipt a certified copy of this order along with the representation.

Till decision by the Committee, the interim order granted by this Court dated 12.9.2013 shall continue."

3. Before adjudicating and deciding the matter in question, it is appropriate to go through the ambit and scope of the review on which a review petition can be made.

4. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537 has emphasized that the Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.

5. In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 , in a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.

6. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, review can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353 , after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680 ; Sutherdraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323 ; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231 ; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365 observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well.

8. In the instant case, the review petitioner has in fact tried to persuade the Court for re-hearing and re-appraisal of the matter, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction of this Court.

9. It is pertinent to add here that though the Counsel for the review petitioner has made submission that certain points have been left to be con