A review petition must present substantive grounds and not repeat old arguments. The circumstances under which a review will be maintainable and when it will not be maintainable were clarified by the court.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Pathak, J.

1. Present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 16-12-2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 19466/2020 whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed.

2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner who is work contractor completed one project of respondents on 31-07-2004 and extension of time for completion of project was granted by the respondents under certain clauses of agreement without levy of compensation and therefore, according to petitioner, delay in completion of project was not attributable to the petitioner. Final bill was also paid on 12-01-2007, therefore, according to petitioner, contract was duly completed and there was no dispute between the parties till its completion.

3. It further appears that respondent No. 2 (Chief Engineer, Yamuna Kachhar Zone, WRD Gwalior) suo motu reviewed its earlier decision and passed the order dated 23-02-2007 holding that delay caused in completion of project was attributable to the petitioner and resultantly 1% of contract value be recovered as liquidated damages.

4. Being aggrieved by such action, petitioner preferred petition vide Writ Petition No. 8975/2012 which was dismissed vide order dated 18-11-2015 whereby this Court declined to go into merits of the matter and relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of arbitration under the agreement.

5. It appears that petitioner did not approach the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal after the said order but resurfaced as litigant again before this Court by way of filing Writ Petition No. 19466/2020 when Executive Engineer of WRD-respondent No. 3 herein requested the revenue authority to recover the amount of Rs. 89.87 lacs from the petitioner which according to them is unduly made and excess payment to the petitioner. This Court vide order dated 16-12-2020 found the case repetitive in nature with same set of allegations and relief as sought earlier by way of Writ Petition No. 8975/2012 and after considering the fact situation as well as legal position, dismissed the petition with the direction to avail in house remedy of arbitration as directed in earlier round of litigation.

6. It further appears that the petitioner instead of challenging the said order before the Apex Court, has preferred this review petition solely on the ground that contract includes both the parties, present petitioner as well as State Government and therefore, if the State Government has any grievance left as per contract then the State Government should approach Arbitration Tribunal and not otherwise. He again relied upon the judgment passed in the case of Baijnath Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, 2005 (3) MPLJ 540 which is based upon the decision of Apex Court in the case of State of Karnataka Vs. Shri Rameshwara Rice Mills, AIR 1987 SC 1359.

7. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court erred in passing the impugned order dated 16-12-2020 and therefore, deserves to review the same and recall it.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that once this Court in earlier round of litigation i.e. Writ Petition No. 8975/2012 decided the controversy and dismissed the petition vide order dated 18-11-2015 and relegated the petitioner to avail the remedy of arbitration before M.P. Arbitration Tribunal then no scope exist for the petitioner to file Writ Petition No. 19466/2020 by way of second round of litigation and if it is filed so then the Court has rightly dismissed the petition. No scope of review existed in the matter.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record appended to the petition.

10. In the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down.

The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows:

When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or