1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW PETITION (ST.) NO. 1639 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 705 OF 2002 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9323 OF 2010 The Deputy Director, Social Forestry Division, Aurangabad ...Petitioner Versus Shri Laxman Janardhan Chandratike ...Respondents ..... Mrs. Kalpalata Patil Bharaswadkar, advocate for the petitioner Mr. A.S. Shelke, advocate for respondent ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 6TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard. 2 Counsel for the review petitioner mainly placed reliance on ground Nos. 2 and 3 taken in the review petition. According to counsel, when writ petition was heard by this court, the reasons for not filing written statement and also writ petition, within time were not brought to the notice of this Court and therefore, the judgment and order under review came to be passed. According to learned counsel 2 for the review petitioner, sufficient reasons were available for the review petitioner for not filing the written statement and writ petition within time. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, ground Nos. 2 and 3 for the review petition are main grounds on which this petition deserves to be entertained. Learned counsel also invited my attention to other grounds raised in the review petition. 3 Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that all these grounds were available to the review petitioner at the time of final hearing of the petition. Therefore, according to him, no case is made out to review the judgment and order dated 2.9.2009. According to the learned counsel, no error apparent on the face of record committed by this Court while passing the order under review or no any fresh material is brought to the notice of this Court so as to entertain this review application. 4 I have heard learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and also counsel for the respondent. I have carefully perused the grounds taken in the review petition, including the ground Nos. 2 and 3. 5 After hearing counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the impugned judgment and order under review and also other material placed on record, it clearly appears to me that all grounds 3 taken in the review petition were available to the review petitioner at the time of final hearing of the writ petition. Even ground Nos. 2 and 3 were also available. In my opinion, no new material, as such, has been brought on record so as to establish the case for review of earlier judgment and order dated 2.9.2009 passed in writ petition No. 705 of 2002. It may be that the review petitioner may have ground to file appeal challenging the impugned judgment and order. However, certainly there is no case to entertain the review petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the 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. 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.” 6 I have considered the application seeking review of my earlier judgment and order dated 2.9.2009 passed in writ petition No. 705 of 2002. I have also considered the provisions of law so also the original petition which is available with me. 7 Having given consideration to the submissions of parties, in my view, no ground or error apparent on the face of record is established to invoke the review jurisdiction of this court. I see no substance in the application. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed. 8 In view of dismissal of review petition, civil application No. 9323 of 2010 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. . *****