The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of finality of judgment and the limited scope for review, emphasizing that review does not lie on the wrong decision and can only be entertained for an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order.

JUDGMENT :

T. Nandakumar Singh, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.S. Massar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner i.e. respondent No. 1 in WP(C) No. 378/2013 and Mr. S. Sen, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. The main thrust for filing the present review petition for review of the judgment and order of this Court dated 30.09.2014 are:-

(i) in the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 378/2013 only the portion of the Notification i.e. impugned Notification dated 01.10.2012 is impugned in the writ petition and;

(ii) also para 8(1) of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India had not been considered while passing the judgment and order dated 30.09.2014.

3. On careful perusal of the present review petition as well as hearing of the submission of the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner i.e. respondent No. 1 in WP(C) No. 378/2013, it is clear that the review petitioner is seeking for rehearing of the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 378/2013 which had already been heard and finally decided. It is now well settled that the review petition cannot be filed for rehearing of the writ petition which had already been finally decided and also that the writ petition which had already been decided finally cannot be reopened for hearing only on the ground that one important point had not been discussed at the time of final disposing of the writ petition. It is equally well settled that there should be finality of the judgment. It is also equally well settled that the review petition does not lie on the wrong decision. Review petition will lie when there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order and no consideration/justification is required to see if there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order. Once hearing and discussion is required to see if there is an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order, such type of error is not an error apparent on the face of the judgment and order for which review petition could be filed. For this settled principle of law, no citation of case law is required.

4. It is a settled law that the fact contains in the judgment as to what happened in the Court or as to what are the points argued in the Court are conclusive and cannot ordinarily be allowed to be controverted by an affidavit or otherwise. Regarding this settled law, it would be sufficed to refer to two cases i.e. (i) Food Corporation of India and Others Vs. Bhanu Lodh and Others, AIR 2005 SC 2775 and (ii) Bank of Bihar Ltd. Vs. Mahabir Lal and Others, AIR 1963 SC 377.

Para 11 of the SCC in Food Corpn. of India case (Supra) reads as follows:-

"11. We may first dispose of the contention raised by Mr. Sanjay Parikh, learned counsel for the petitioner in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11475 of 2004. Having perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, we find that the only question which was argued before the learned Single Judge was the one which we have extracted hereinbefore. No other point seems to have been addressed to the Court. A perusal of the judgment in the writ appeal also supports this view. In the face of this record, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that any other arguments were addressed. We must accept as correct the facts as obtaining from the judgment of the High Court, which cannot be controverted by the averments made in the present special leave petition, nor by the statement made across the Bar. We are, therefore, not in a position to accept that any contention other than the contention placed before the High Court was argued before the High Court. (See the observations of this Court in para 4 in the judgment of State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another, AIR 1982 SC 1249 The only contention which appears to have been argued and examined by the High Court pertained to the power of the Central Government to issue directio