Heard all the parties and perused the materials placed before this Court.

2.Seeking leave to file a Review Application in respect of the direction issued by this Court in paragraph 31 of the judgment dated 13.03.2020 in CMA.No.2337 of 2015 etc. batch, the Registry of this Court has come up with this Miscellaneous Petition.

3.For better appreciation, paragraph 31 of the judgment, which is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner, is extracted below: 2/38

4.According to the petitioner, since the judgment was passed in relation to the private disputes, the Registry of this court is a third party to the appeal proceedings and hence, the direction issued to the Registry to circulate a copy of the order amounts to an order passed in a public interest litigation and the same can be issued only by the Division Bench dealing with such matters. The petitioner further stated that the general supervision, co-ordination and control of all administrative works of the High Court are 3/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 vested with the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this court and that, if this court feels that it is a matter of importance where a direction is required to be issued to the subordinate judiciary or executive, then, it has to be placed before the Division Bench dealing with Public Interest Litigations and therefore, such a direction cannot be issued by the learned single judge. To substantiate the said averments, the petitioner placed reliance on the following judgments of the Division Bench of this Court:

5.At the outset, this court is of the view that the aforesaid two judgments relied on by the petitioner are not applicable to the present case, as they are factually different and distinguishable.

5.1 The first case in WA(MD)No.1061 of 2019 arises from the order passed in WP.(MD)No.16250 of 2012, which was filed to challenge the order dated 25.12.2011 passed by the fourth respondent and for consequential direction to permit the writ petitioner therein to discharge 4/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 duties as part time over head tank operator in the fourth respondent Panchayat. When the writ petition was heard on 04.06.2019, there was power failure for about seven minutes, due to which, the court was put to inconvenience, because there was no emergency lamp available in the court room. Hence, the Registrar Administration was suo motu impleaded and certain queries were raised relating to non-availability of emergency light in the court hall, verification of genuineness of the employees' educational qualification, age limit, community certificates etc., directly touching upon the administrative affairs of the institution. After examining all the aspects, the Division Bench was of the view that the direction issued by the learned single judge was clearly outside the scope of the writ petition and the same also makes inroads into the administrative process adopted by the High Court headed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice. After holding so, the writ appeal was allowed and the directions issued by the learned single judge was set aside.

5.2 In the second case in WA.No.684 of 2020, which was filed by the Registry of this court against the observations made in paragraphs (11) and (12) of the order dated 30.10.2019 passed in WP.No.30827 of 2019, 5/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 relating to posting of cases, the contention raised was that the learned single judge made such observations against the Registry, who has transcended its authority and accordingly, adversely commented upon the procedure sought to be adopted. Having observed so, the learned single Judge issued directions to the Registrar General for ensuring transparency in the matter of dealing with the cases by the High Court, as if posting of cases by the Registry at times amounts to an interference with the allotment of rosters and the same tends to create an impression that the counsel are successful in forum shopping. Hence, the Division Bench opined that the question of posting of cases is to be governed by the orders of the Chief Justice on the administrative side fixing rosters and therefore, if there is any doubt about the jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Judge entertaining a matter, then the same has to be dealt with on the administrative side with a direction to place it before the Chief Justice or otherwise clarify the same in terms of the roster already fixed by the Chief Justice. Accordingly, the Registrar General was instructed that whenever such an occasion arises, either the roster jurisdiction should be explained before the Hon'ble Judge entertaining the petition or in case of any doubt being expressed by the bench, the same 6/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 should be placed before the Chief Justice on the administrative side for appropriate orders.

5.3 Thus, it is apparent that the aforesaid two judgments do not support the case of the petitioner herein, as the same are factually different and absolutely distinct.

6.However, during the course of hearing, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner referred to a judgment of the Division Bench in WA.No.1161 of 2020 dated 24.03.2021, which was rendered subsequent to the order sought to be reviewed herein. The said case arises out of the order passed in WP.No.10230 of 2019, wherein a direction was given by the learned single judge to the Registry of this court to circulate a copy of the order to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry after getting appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice. Therefore, before pondering the merits of the case at hand, it would be appropriate to consider the facts involved in W.P.No.10230 of 2019 and the judgment passed by the Division Bench in WA.No.1161 of 2020. 7/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 6.1 The writ petition was filed by an insurance investigator challenging the order of the police department refusing to furnish copies of the documents sought by him relating to a motor accident. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, issued certain directions to the Registrar General to get necessary orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice and thereafter, circulate a copy of the said order to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. In the writ appeal, the High court Registry took a stand that such directions can be issued only by the Division Bench having the roster of Public Interest Litigations. The Division Bench disposed of the said writ appeal, after having held that such administrative decision cannot be taken as a rule-making body in exercise of powers under Article 226.

7.With great respect, this court is of the opinion that in the aforesaid writ appeal bearing No.1161 of 2020, the Registry did not bring all the material facts and many other orders / judgments of this court as well the apex court passed in similar circumstances. In fact, the two judgments relied upon by the Registry are completely on different facts and do not augment 8/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 their case. In the judgement in State of U.P. and others v. Neeraj Chaubey and others1, the subject matter was with respect to an advertisement for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, but the Division Bench dealt with the issue relating to construction of new High Court building complex and passed order, which was completely unconnected with the ‘lis’ before the court. Therefore, the supreme court was of the view that since the subject of Public Interest Litigation was not posted before the Division Bench, it could not have done so. As such , the said judgment of the supreme court cannot be correlated to a direction issued by this court in a judicial capacity on the subject directly connected with the “lis”.

7.1 In another judgment referred to in the said Division Bench judgement in Chawali vs. State of U.P. and others2, not only the facts, but also the issues before the court were different. In that case, the learned single judge had continued to take up similar cases after the main HCP was disposed of and even after change of roster. Further, after a case was converted as a PIL and taken up with other cases, without the order of the 1 (2010) 10 SCC 320 2 Misc.Bench No. 9470 of 2014 connected and Special Appeal (D) No. 32 of 2014, Writ Petition Nos. 2666 of 2013 and 299 (H/C) of 2014 dated 16.01.2015 9/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 Hon’ble Chief Justice, a single case was delisted and was posted before the learned single judge, who passed an order, which resulted in constitution of a Full Bench and thereafter , the said judgment was rendered by the supreme court. As the facts and the findings rendered therein are different , the said judgment is not applicable to the case at hand.

7.2 Thus, placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench in WA.No.1161 of 2020, which was passed on 24.03.2021 subsequent to the judgment of this Court, there cannot be any ground raised by the petitioner to review the direction issued in CMA.No.2337 of 2015 etc. batch which was rendered much earlier on 13.03.2020 that the ratio laid down by the court in a subject matter allotted to it as per the roster in connection with the “lis” would amount to a Public Interest Litigation and that, a direction to communicate the same to all the subordinate courts would amount to interference with the roster, cannot be countenanced by this Court.

10/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020

8.There is no qualm that the Hon’ble Chief Justice is the master of the roster. However, such claim can be made, only if a Judge takes up a matter not falling in the roster allotted to him. Whereas, in the case at hand, this court only directed the Registry to circulate a copy of the judgment in CMA.No.2337 of 2015 etc. batch to all the District and Subordinate courts dealing with Motor Accident Claims, after having observed that issuance of disability certificates without meeting out the statutory requirements will result in irregularities and inconsistencies with huge monetary commitments to the Government and Public Sector Undertakings and therefore, a proper and uniform method has to be adopted, while issuing such certificates in future to weed out the same; and accordingly, this court directed the competent medical authorities to issue statutory disability certificates only as per the appendices prescribed in the notification dated 04.01.2018 as contemplated under the Act to maintain uniformity, consistency and standardisation in issuance of the same. Thus, the purpose for which such a direction was issued to the Registry is only in the academic as well as legal interest to enlighten the subordinate courts / Tribunals, which deal with motor accident compensation cases involving crores of rupees and hence, 11/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 the same will, in no way, affect the existing procedure scrupulously followed by the Registry to streamline the administrative efficacy.

9.As mentioned earlier, the Registry did not bring about a very vital information available as Annexure 1 in the website of the Madras High Court under the heading “ Right to Information Act -Manual/Duties and responsibilities of the Officers and Staff Members”, which contains the latest and amended proceedings of this court issued on the Administrative Side vide R.O.C.No.32940/A-2016/B.2 dated 03.04.2017, wherein the role of the Registrar General is provided and the same runs thus:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020

19.All matters dealt by the Registrar (Admin), Registrar (Management), Registrar (District Judiciary) and Registrar (IT-cum-Statistics) before being placed before appropriate Committee.

20. Communications relating to Vigilance Cell, High Court, Madras.

21. Matters relating to accounts of the High Court.

22. Regularisation, declaration of probation, imposing of minor punishment, transfer and postings of High Court Officers and Staff of the High Court.

23. Reference to Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and Governments.

24. All matters relating to Judicial Academy.

25. Sanction of House building advance to the Officers and Staff of the High Court.

26. Matters which are not specifically allotted to other Officers.

27. Other matters that may be specifically allotted by the Hon'ble The Chief Justice from time to time.” 9.1 The above order was issued by the Hon'ble Chief Justice on the administrative side and the same is binding on all the officers and staff of the High Court, needless to state, on the Registrar General as well. In serial no.17, it is specifically stated that the responsibility of the Registrar General is to place before the Hon’ble Chief Justice / Hon’ble Committee/Hon’ble Judge, the judicial pronouncements that are to be circulated to the subordinate judiciary. Therefore, it goes without saying that whenever a direction is issued by this court, whether to place it before the Hon’ble Chief Justice to obtain necessary orders for circulation or to circulate the 14/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 decision to the subordinate judiciary, it is the bounden duty of the Registrar General to place the same before the Hon’ble Chief Justice and obtain necessary permission for sensitizing the subordinate judiciary. Further, the independent matters to be dealt with by the Registrar General also include the matters relating to Judicial Academy, implying important decisions are to be communicated to the Judicial Academy, which has been the practice. It is, therefore, lucid that the existence of such an administrative order and procedure, was not placed before the said Division Bench, rather projecting such direction to be an interference with the roster, which is not the case at hand.

10.Be it noted that various decisions of this court, in which directions were issued to the Registry to communicate to the subordinate judiciary and the fact that some of such decisions were upheld by the Supreme Court, were not placed before the Division Bench. It is not out of place to mention here that the practice of issuing certain directions touching upon the ‘lis’ has been in vogue for several decades in the judiciary throughout the world. It is a part of the judicial function. It is not to be forgotten that a judicial officer 15/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 representing the court, is performing a public duty in the administration of justice of which dispensation in the penultimate part with execution being the ultimate, for which the entire system strives. Therefore, it is the duty of the High Court to ensure that the purpose of the judgment is achieved when a law is laid down. It includes within its ambit, the judicial authority to ensure that ratio is brought to the knowledge of all concerned.

11.It is also to be pointed out that the court owes a responsibility not only to the system, but also to the public by ensuring that uniform principles and standards are followed. It is only under such circumstances, the courts have been issuing directions for circulation of the order, so as to enable the lower judiciary to be appraised of the legal position. Such directions are indispensably, part of judicial orders deriving power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the same not only ensure uniformity and legality, but also comprehensively save the time of the court. At this juncture, it is apt to quote the three basic principles laid down by Lord Denning in Ward v. James3, while dealing with claims relating to personal 3 (1965) 1 All ER 563 16/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 injury, which reads as under:

12.It is also relevant to refer to the judgement of the supreme court in K. Kraipak v. Union of India4 . In the said case, while discussing on Administrative orders and quasi -Judicial Orders, the Apex Court held as follows:

We have as it seems to me reached the position when the ambit of certiorari can be said to cover every case in which a body of persons of a public as opposed to a purely private or domestic 19/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 character has to determine matters affecting subjects provided always that it has a duty to act judicially. Looked at in this way the board in my judgment comes fairly and squarely, within the jurisdiction of this court. It is as Mr. Bridge said, 'a servant of the Crown charged by the Crown, by executive instruction, with the duty of distributing the bounty of the Crown. ‘It is clearly, therefore, performing public duties”.

13.To determine as to whether an order is a judicial order or not, one has to look at the law from where such power is derived, on whom such power is conferred, who has exercised such power and in what capacity, the substantive and procedural laws on the matter and the consequence of an order passed. If the result of such orders culminate in a legally enforceable right or in the nature of curtailing a right or directions to persons engaged in the performance of public duties, it is invariably a judicial order. Hence, there can be no doubt about the position that any direction issued by the court is nothing but a judicial order and the interpretation of the same by the Registry is misconceived.

14.It is also imperative to refer to the doctrine of implied power, a useful rule in the parlance of legal jurisprudence, which means that 20/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 whenever an authority is granted, it goes without saying all incidental and implied powers that are granted along with it, which also includes its enforceability, failing which the grant of such power would become ineffective or redundant. In this context, it is significant to cite the Judgment of the supreme court in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P.5 , wherein it was held as follows:

Thus where an Act confers jurisdiction it impliedly also grants the power of doing all such acts or employ such means as are essentially necessary to its execution.

19. The reason for the rule (doctrine of implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted from legislation. As Crawford observes in his Statutory Construction (3rd edn. page 267):-

20. In ascertaining a necessary implication, the Court simply determines the legislative will and makes it effective. What is 5 2008 (2) SCC 409 21/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 necessarily implied is as much part of the statute as if it were specifically written therein.

21. An express grant of statutory powers carries with it by necessary implication the authority to use all reasonable means to make such grant effective. Thus in ITO, Cannanore vs. M.K. Mohammad Kunhi , AIR 1969 SC 430, this Court held that the income tax appellate tribunal has implied powers to grant stay, although no such power has been expressly granted to it by the Income Tax Act .

22. Similar examples where this Court has affirmed the doctrine of implied powers are Union of India vs. Paras Laminates AIR 1991 SC 696, Reserve Bank of India vs. Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd AIR 1996 SC 646 (at p. 656), Chief Executive Officer & Vice Chairman Gujarat Maritime Board vs. Haji Daud Haji Harun Abu 1996 ( 11) SCC 23, J.K. Synthetics Ltd. vs. Collector of Central Excise , AIR 1996 SC 3527, State of Karnataka vs. Vishwabharati House Building Co-op Society 2003 (2) SCC 412 (at p.432) etc.

15.As already stated, the Registrar is duty bound to communicate the orders of this court. The orders / judgments of this court are public records. It is pertinent to mention that the orders / judgments of this court are published in the website of the court. That apart, every judge is entitled to indicate in the order, whether the judgment is reportable or not and depending upon the same and the rules for reporting by private law journals copies are taken by the editors of the journals and the copies are sent to 22/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 Judicial Academy. The object, as said before, is to sensitize all the people involved in the administration of justice, including but not limited to the litigants and the subordinate judiciary.

16.Now, it is necessary to list some of the cases in which directions were issued and the same were complied with by the Registrar, based on the administrative procedure in vogue, as below:

A/2004/F1 dated 08.04.2004,

2. Order dated 22.03.2006 in Crl.O.P.No.7328 of 2006, wherein directions issued to the magistrate courts and District courts and complied with by the Registrar General vide R.O.C.No.1253-A/2006/Crl.Sec/F1 dated 28.03.2006,

3. Order dated 28.10.2009 in Crl O.P.No.16253 of 2007, wherein, directions issued by the court regarding procedure to be followed by the 23/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 investigating agencies and trial courts and complied with by the Registrar General Vide ROC No 5920-A/09/F1 P.DIS NO.8/2010 dated 28.01.2010,

4. Order dated 23.04.2010 in C.M.A.(MD).No.69 of 2010, wherein, directions issued to the tribunals in Tamil Nadu dealing with Motor Accident claim cases to deny the insurance companies to put forward certain plea and complied with by the Registrar General vide R.O.C.No.504-A/2011/F/MB in P.Dis.No.10/2011 dated 12.04.2011,

5. Order dated 07.03.2016 in Crl.O.P.(MD).No.3144 of 2016, wherein, directions issued by this court to the Registry to circulate the order after getting appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice and complied with by the Registrar General vide Roc.No.740-A/2016/F/MB P.dis 119/2016,

6. Order dated 11.03.2016 in C.M.A.No.428 of 2016 by the Division Bench of this court while hearing an appeal relating to motor accident claim, whereby a procedure was laid down and the compensation awarded was directed to be deposited in the bank account of the claimant and the order was directed to be circulated to the subordinate tribunals after getting appropriate orders from the Hon’ble Chief Justice and complied with 24/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 by the Registry vide Roc.No.31955-A/2016/FI P.Dis.No.120/2016, High Court of Madras,

7. Order dated 12.04.2016 in C.M.A.No.2380 of 2015 by the Division Bench hearing appeals in motor accident claims cases, wherein procedure for assessment of disability was laid down and Registry was directed to circulate the order and complied with vide Roc.No.53091- A/2016-FI dated 04.08.2016,

8. Order dated 21.07.2017 in Crl.OP.Nos.8690 and 12060 of 2017, wherein the many directions were issued including transfer of all cases relating to idol theft in the state to the file of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam and complied with by the Registry vide R.O.C.No.62204-A/2017/F1 dated 17.08.2017. The Special Leave Petition in SLP (Crl).Nos.6139 of 2017 & 6140 of 2017 filed against the said order were also dismissed on 01.09.2017. This factum was not brought to the knowledge of the Division Bench.

9. Order dated 26.06.2018 in C.M.A.No.1317 of 2018 by the Division Bench while dealing with an appeal against the award of motor 25/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 accident claims tribunal, wherein directions were issued to the tribunals to consider the standard deduction in the particular year while calculating the income of the deceased and complied with by the Registrar vide Roc.No. 50261-A/2018/F1 P. Dis. No : 124/2018,

10. Order dated 14.10.2019 in W.P.No.7789 of 2019, wherein the Division Bench of this court while hearing a Writ Petition relating to SARFAESI Act by an aggrieved party, issued directions to the trial courts to take note of the bar under Section 34 of the Act and complied with by the Registry vide Roc.No.89G43-A/2019/F1 P.Dis.135/2019.

17.Apart from that, there are numerous cases, in which the Supreme Court, while hearing appeals under Articles 132 and 133 and petitions for Special Leave to Appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, issued similar directions, which are very much available in the website of the state judicial academy. All the above orders as well as many such orders are displayed in the website of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy, the primary object of which inter alia is to provide training to the judicial officers and appraise them about the judicial pronouncement of higher 26/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 forums. When such being so, it is really unfortunate that the petitioner did not appraise of the said position before the Division Bench. It is not out of place to mention here that the Division Benches issued such directions that were complied with by the Registrar General by circulating such orders to the subordinate courts. This fact was also not brought to the knowledge of the Division Bench.

18.For a limited purpose of culling out the situation in which the case was projected by the Registrar General without any party to oppose or put forth the correct facts and law before the Division Bench, which made the court to pass such an order, it is apropos to refer to the Full Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court in Re: Babul Chandra case6, wherein, the Patna High Court while dealing with a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction against the refusal of the very same High Court to enrol a person as an Advocate, held as follows: “It is apparent that a writ cannot be issued by the High Court to itself for the process involves rather the absurd position that it calls upon the Judges to show 6 AIR 1952 Pat 309 (FB) 27/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 cause to themselves why they should not be directed to quash something they themselves have determined. It is also manifest on principle that a judge is without jurisdiction to issue a writ or order to another judge of co- ordinate jurisdiction and power to compel performance of duties”.

18.1 It was only the appellant therein, that is, the Registrar was heard. The formal respondents were not interested in the appeal as it pertained only to the directions to the Registrar to communicate. Obviously, the Division Bench could not have arrayed the High Court itself as a respondent to strike down the directions issued by the High court in an appeal filed by it. If at all anybody could have defended the appeal, it could only be the Registrar, who, for unknown reasons, filed the appeal in suppression of the facts indicated above.

19.It is also noteworthy that the judgment referred to by the petitioner was rendered by the Division Bench on 24.03.2021, whereas the direction sought to be reviewed herein, was issued by judgment dated 13.03.2020 in CMA.No.2337 of 2015 etc. batch, and hence, the said Division Bench 28/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 judgment cannot be made applicable retrospectively, but only prospectively and hence, such a direction ought to have been complied with by the Registry.

20.Now coming to the case at hand, the grounds for review is no longer res integra. In the Judgment in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati7, the apex court, after examining various Judgments passed earlier, has held as follows:

19) Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC . In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles:

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. , (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles 31/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275.

20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020

24) Based on the above, at the foremost, it is submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner that on a reading of various orders of this Court, it is clear that FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 was lodged under the orders and directions of this Court. In order to substantiate the above argument, Mr. Shanti Bhushan, once again, took us through earlier orders which were passed at the time of original hearing. In fact, the very same orders and arguments were advanced by the then Additional Solicitor General for CBI as well as Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel on behalf of the intervener. In paragraph Nos. 18 to 23 of the order dated 06.07.2012, the very same contentions have been made, dealt with and duly considered at length and it was clarified that anything beyond the Taj Corridor matter was not the subject matter of reference before the Taj Corridor Bench and the CBI is not justifying in proceeding with FIR being RC No. 0062003A0019 of 2003 dated 05.10.2003 since the order dated 18.09.2003 does not contain any specific direction regarding lodging of FIR in the matter of disproportionate assets case against Ms. Mayawati- Respondent No. 1 herein.

From the above settled position of law on the grounds of review, it is 33/38 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ CMP.No.13380 of 2020 in Rev.Appln SR.No.84024 of 2020 evident that there must be a material error, manifest on the face of the order that undermine its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. Whereas, in the present case, the direction so issued to the Registry cannot be termed as an error and hence, the review petition cannot be maintainable.

21.That apart, it is settled law that unless a petitioner is aggrieved with the ratio laid down in the judgment, he has no right to file a petition to review. In this context, it is relevant to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Karnataka v. T.R. Dhananjaya8 , in which it was held as follows:

In Satvir Singh v. Baldeva9 , the apex court held as follows:

22.In such view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits and is accordingly, dismissed. Consequently, the Review Application is rejected at SR stage itself. No costs.