1. This is an application review of our judgment dated 02.05.2017. The writ petition was argued on behalf of review-applicant i.e. respondent by Sri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Pratul Kumar Srivastava, Advocate. Now review applicant has been filed by new counsel i.e. Sri Neerav Chitravanshi.

2. It is well settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same counsel who has earlier argued the matter. In T.N. Electricity Board vs. N. Raju Reddiar, AIR 1997 SC 1005, the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of arguing the matter by one counsel and review by another counsel and has observed that the review application ought to have been filed by the same counsel who has argued the matter.

3. That apart, the grounds taken in Review Petition as also arguments advanced show that review-applicant wants to re-argue the matter which is not permissible in the garb of review.

4. An application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. In the garb of a review application re-argument on merits of the case cannot be allowe