IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Application No. 349 of 2010 IN Special Appeal No. 37 of 2010 On behalf of applicant/Respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Surendra Kumar Arora …….…… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the non-applicant/ appellant. Mr. Vinay Kymar, Standing Counsel for non-applicant /respondent No.1. Mr. Ram Ji Srivastava, Advocate for review applicant /respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Coram:- Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, Judge Date of Decision : 28.10.2010 Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) This review application is devoid of any merits. The basic intention of the review applicants is to re-argue the case. There is no error or mistake on the face of the judgment and despite our calling upon the learned counsel for the review applicants to point out the same, he could not do so. His contention is that the writ petition was not maintainable. From the judgment and order under review it does not appear that at or before the same was rendered, any effort was made by the review applicants to impress upon the Court that the writ petition is not maintainable. The conclusion, therefore, would be that on the garb of review, the review applicants seek to re-argue the case, which is not permissible under law. The review application fails and is dismissed. ( Sudhanshu Dhulia,J. ) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.10.2010 P. Singh