Amba Deep Servo Petroleums vs The Union Of India And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2327 Bom

                                                             901-RAST-13476-2022.odt



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

            REVIEW APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.13476 OF 2022
                         IN WP/1815/2019
Amba Deep Servo Petroleums                               ...Applicant
         Versus
The Union of India and others                            ...Respondents
                              ...
Mr. Digambar Mawal Patil (Party-in-person) for the Applicant.
                              ...
                                  CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL &
                                           S.G. MEHARE, J.J.

                                         DATED : 10th MARCH, 2023
PER COURT :-

1.               Heard before notice.

2.               The petitioner in person is seeking review of the order of

this Court in Writ Petition No.1815 of 2019 dated 07.03.2022.

3.               Heard the petitioner-in-person for about 30 minutes. He

has submitted the written notes of arguments. He read over the notes

of arguments. Most of the arguments advanced by him were on the

facts of the writ petition. He was arguing as if it is an appeal.

4.               The      Hon'ble   Supreme Court   in     the    case     of    S.

Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, 2022

LiveLaw (SC) 685, has laid down that an error apparent on the face of

the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. An

erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court.                        A

judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error


                                                                                1/2

::: Uploaded on - 14/03/2023                    ::: Downloaded on - 15/03/2023 01:41:37 :::
                                                               901-RAST-13476-2022.odt



apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be

detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error

apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers

of review.

5.                 The notes of argument placed on record by the applicant

proceed to point out the errors committed by this Court in

appreciating the facts and circumstances. Though the Apurva Chandra

Committee report was considered by this Court while deciding the

writ petition, he is insisting that the report was not considered. All

the facts which he argues before this Court have been considered by

this Court at the time of deciding the writ petition.

6.                 The applicant miserably fails to satisfy the Court that

there was an error apparent on the face of record in the order to

undertake a review, we are of the view that this review application is

nothing but an abuse of process of law and wastage of the Court's

valuable time. Hence, the following order :

                                     ORDER

I) The review application stands dismissed with exemplary cost of

Rs.25,000/-.

(S.G. MEHARE. J.) (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.)

Mujaheed//