1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION NO. 104 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 59 OF 2009 Shabir Ahmed s/o Mohd. Saheb Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus The Chief Officer, Nagar Parishad, Paithan, District Aurangabad and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.R. Andhale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. Suresh W. Mundhe, advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. V.D. Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.2 and 3 ..... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 28TH JULY, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard counsel for the parties. This review petition is filed with a prayer to view the order dated 27.8.2009, passed by this Court in writ petition No. 59 of 2009. 2 With the assistance of counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have perused the grounds taken in the review petition. So far as ground No.1 and 2 are concerned, it is stated that the order under 2 review is passed without hearing the counsel for the petitioner, as he was on leave on 27.8.2009. So far as the ground Nos.3 to 7 are concerned, those were in the writ petition and thus they formed part of the writ petition. In ground No.8, it is stated that without examining the record, the order under review came to be passed. It is also mentioned that no record was produced by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Collector or the Commissioner at the time of hearing. So far as ground No.9 is concerned, the statement in the said ground is general in nature. Ground No.10 was also available to the petitioner when the petition was pending. 3 Original writ petition No. 59 of 2009 was fixed for hearing from time to time by this Court before the order under review came to be passed. The petition was placed for hearing on 22.7.2009. On that date since none appeared for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.8.2009. On 20.8.2009, the matter was adjourned by one week at the request of the counsel for the petitioner. On 27.8.2009, none appeared for the petitioner nor request was made for adjournment. It follows from the farad sheet that on 22.7.2009, since none appeared for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 20.8.2009 and thereafter on 20.8.2009 at the request of the counsel for the petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 27.8.2009. Having been said so, it was for the advocate on record of the petitioner to make arrangement to mention the matter on the date when it was taken up for hearing on 3 27.8.2009. However, it seems that said endeavour was not made by the counsel for the petitioner or for that matter by the petitioner himself. 4 On perusal of the order under review, it clearly appears that this Court proceeded to decide the writ petition on merits and thus the order under review came to be passed on merits. On careful perusal of other grounds, it clearly appears that the said grounds formed part of the writ petition. The grounds taken in review petition, may be available for the petitioner for filing an appeal but certainly not for review of the order dated 27.8.2009, passed in writ petition No. 59 of 2009. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court or authorities below. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 3, in the case of A.T. Sharma Vs. A.P. Sharma, reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 has observed thus:- “It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1963 SC 1909) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable error committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where 4 some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.” 5 I have given due consideration to the submissions advanced by the counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respective respondents. Upon perusal of the grounds taken in the review petition, I find that no case is made out to review the order dated 27.8.2009 passed in writ petition No. 59 of 2009. Review petition is devoid of any merits and same stands dismissed. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/