Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to entertain new arguments or issues that were not pleaded in the original proceedings, as such does not constitute an 'error apparent on the face of the record'.

JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)

Heard Mr. DK Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. H Betala, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. R Sarmah, the learned counsel, who appears on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 5. None has appeared on behalf of the Union of India on call.

2. This review petition has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed in WP(C)No.7564/2018.

3. Vide an order dated 18.06.2024, this Court had issued notice and in pursuance thereto, the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are duly represented. The respondent Nos.2 to 5 have also filed an affidavit-in-opposition contesting the review application and a reply thereto has been filed by the petitioner.

4. The question arises in the instant proceedings as to whether exercise of review jurisdiction is required in respect to the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024 passed in WP(C)No.7564/2018. It is well settled that the review jurisdiction can be exercised when either of the three conditions are met, i.e.

(i). when there is an error apparent on the face of the record;

(ii). discovery of new and important materials which after due exercise of diligence was not within the knowledge of the review applicant;

(iii) or for any other sufficient reasons. The question, therefore, arises in the instant proceedings as to whether any of the three conditions mentioned above is satisfied.

5. Mr. DK Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the National Horticulture Board had proposed various schemes for providing subsidy, including the scheme for providing subsidy upon setting up of cold storage. The petitioner upon being encouraged by the subsidy provided by the National Horticulture Board decided to open up cold storage with a storage capacity of 11,000 metric tons for storage of vegetables and fruits at Palashbari Road. In that regard, the petitioner sought for term loan from the Punjab National Bank. Such loan was sanctioned on 09.03.2017 of an amount of Rupees 600.00 lakhs. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for a Letter of Intent as per the operational guidelines then existing on 30.03.2017. However, that said application seeking Letter of Intent was returned on 03.04.2017, without taking into consideration that the petitioner's application was for setting up of a cold storage and not for expansion of the cold storage. The petitioner, thereupon again applied on 24.01.2018 online. However, the same was rejected vide the order dated 02.05.2018.

6. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, an error apparent on the face of the record had crept in, inasmuch as, this Court failed to take into consideration the notices which were issued on 15.08.2017 and 04.09.2017, in the proper perspective. Elaborating further, Mr. DK Mishra, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the public notice dated 15.08.2017, related to those applicants who had obtained the term loan on or after 01.04.2017 and the public notice dated 04.09.2017 was in respect to those applicants, who had obtained the term loan on or before 30.04.2016. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that these schemes which were announced were never withdrawn. However, the applicant, like the petitioner who had got the term loan sanctioned on and from 01.05.2016 to 31.03.2017, either were deprived of the benefits of the scheme which was holding the field or the rejection could not have been possible as there was no