IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO. 13 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 106 OF 2008 GOA STATE CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCTS UNION LTD ... Applicant Versus DR. AJIT KOSSAMBE ... Respondent Mr. Agnelo F. Diniz, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Sudin M.S. Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO & R. C. CHAVAN, JJ. Date:- 11th July, 2008 P.C.: Heard Shri Diniz, the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant and Shri Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent. 2. The applicant herein is the respondent in the Writ Petition No. 106/2008. The applicant seeks review of the order dated 24/03/2008. Counsel on behalf of the applicant submits that by the impugned order, prayer (e) has been granted by this Court, a prayer which would amount to allowing the petition itself. The learned Counsel further submits that the post of the petitioner in the Writ Petition was abolished and, therefore, the petitioner could not have been ordered to be paid his salary. Learned Counsel further submits that this Court did not even make provision to take any security from the petitioner. Learned Counsel relies on Bank of Maharashtra V/s. Race Shipping and Transport Co. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. (AIR 1995 SC 1368) wherein the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically gives the principal relief. 3. On the other hand, the learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent has placed reliance on the case M/S. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V/S. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Deputy Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur (AIR 1964 SC 1372) wherein the Apex Court has explained as to what is an error apparent on the face of the record. The Apex Court has stated that: "The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error." 4. In our view, in order dated 24/03/2008 it was prima facie held that the petition was maintainable, as against the applicant's contention that no writ would lie against a Co-operative Society. Likewise, it was also prima facie held that the alternate remedy urged on behalf of the applicant was not efficacious. The very abolition of the post was also in question in the Writ Petition and this Court held that the petitioner was a regular employee and not a contractual employee and thus interim relief was granted to the petitioner in terms of prayer (e) of the petition. Assuming the said order is erroneous, review is certainly not the remedy available to the applicant. Applicant's remedy would be elsewhere. This is a clear case where the prima facie view held by this Court is sought to be corrected under the guise of review application. Review jurisdiction is not meant for correction of views, if they are wrong, but only for errors apparent on the face of the record or the like. 5. We therefore find no merit in this review petition and, the same is hereby dismissed. Counsel on behalf of the applicant seeks stay of the order dated 24/03/2008. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to grant such a relief at this stage. N. A. BRITTO, J. R. C. CHAVAN, J. NH