The scope of review is confined to errors apparent on the record; previous rulings cannot be contested merely for disagreeing with the outcome.

O R D E R

This petition has been filed seeking to review the order passed by this Court in W.P(MD)No.13918 of 2024, dated 28.06.2024.

2.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that earlier, when the petition in W.P(MD)No.13918 of 2024 was taken up for hearing, this Court by recording the submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the respondent police is not harassing the petitioner, has closed that petition. However, the respondent police, by referring that order passed by this Court in the said writ petition, is not permitting the petitioner to conduct the festival. Therefore, he prays for reviewing the earlier order.

3.Before venturing into any discussion on the rival contentions, this Court may point out that the power of Courts in matters of review is very limited. Such power can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in that event if an order is not reviewed, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. For the said proposition, this Court may usefully refer to the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, in Union of India, Rep. by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Chennai, Vs. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, reported in CDJ 2014 MHC 241, wherein the Division Bench has made a complete survey of several Judgments of the Supreme Court, on this question, and has ultimately, in Paragraph No.10, held as follows:-

"10. In yet another Judgment reported in 2013 (8) SCC

320, [ Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others ], the Hon'ble Apex Court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier has held as follows:

"12. This Court has repeatedly held in various Judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not that of an appeal and it can be entertained only there is an error apparent on the face of record. A mere repetition through different counsel, of old and overrulled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient......."

In the above Judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the principles as under:

"19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XL VII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the Judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned Judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Summary of the principles:

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable, as stipulated by the statute:

20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-

(i). Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii). Mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

(iii). Any other sufficient reason.

The words 'any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki , AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev.Mar Poulose Athanasius & others [1955] 1 SCR 520, to mean, "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India Vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., ors., JT (2013)

8 SC 275.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii). Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii). Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv). Review is not maintainable, unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermine its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v). A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-hear