IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Review Petition No.14 of 2010. Date of decision: 10.9.2010. Ashok Kumar Gupta ….. Petitioner. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Rajeev Sood, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mrs. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. Advocate General, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rahul Mahajan, counsel for respondent No. 2. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral). The petitioner has filed this review petition for reviewing the judgement dated 26.11.2009 on the ground that Rule 99(3) of H.P. Panchayati Raj Election Rules, 1994 provides that every appeal preferred under sub-rule (1) shall be in the form of memorandum by the appellant or his duly authorized agent and shall be accompanied by the treasury challan evidencing the deposit of a sum of Rs.200/- as fee in the Government treasury or Sub Treasury. It has been submitted that the appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was not in accordance with Rule 99 and this aspect has not been considered in Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… judgement dated 26.11.2009. The record of CWP No. 1413 of 2007 is also available. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out specific plea of Rule 99 in the writ petition. In the review petition there is no specific ground that submission was made on the basis of Rule 99 at the time of hearing of writ petition. On the contrary in ground No. 2 of review petition it has been stated that aforesaid fact is question of law the same is not required to be pleaded in the writ petition. 2. There must be error apparent on the face of record while considering the review petition. It was not the case of petitioner at the time of hearing of writ petition that appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was not in conformity with Rule 99. Therefore, judgement dated 26.11.2009 cannot be reviewed on new submission that appeal filed by respondent No. 2 was not in conformity with aforesaid Rule 99. There is no merit in the review petition, which is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s). September 10, 2010. ( Kuldip Singh ), (Hem) Judge.