The petitioner impugns the notice conveyed in the Telegram dated 7.2.86 followed by Memo No. SMG. 49/85/Pt./ dated 11.2.86 stating that one Shri Tarun Chandra Bailung appealed to Government against settlement of Rajmai Cattle market with the petitioner, and fixing the date of hearing of that ap­peal on 14.2.86 at 11 A.M. The said Rajmai Cattle market was settled with the petitioner by the Sibsagar Mohkama Parishad against which said Taiun Chaodra Bailung appealed and the appellate authority by order dated 4.2.86 dismissed that appeal, thus upholding the settlement in favour of the petitioner. The reafter the respondent No. 3 Taruu Chandra Bailung filed the said appeal for review whereupon the impugned notice (Annexure A to the petition) was issued the petitioner in fact appeared be­fore the appellate authority on 14.2.36 and objected to taking up of any proceeding in the nature of review. However, the appe­llate authority fixed 20.2 86 for hearing. Hence this petition. 2. Mr. A. C. Buragohain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under section 138 of the Assam Panchayat Raj Act, 1972 there is no provision for any review of the appellate order passed by the State Government. In fact sub-section (1) (b) of that section says; "Aay employees under a Mohkuma Parishad or any person aggrieved by any order or act of a Mohkuma Parishad may file an appeal within thirty days of receipt of such order or performance of such act, to the State Government the decision of which in this regard shall be final.'' Admittedly the respondent No. 3 Shri Tarun Chandra Bailung earlier appealed un­der the above provision and hence that appellate order is final. Mr. Buragohain submits that there it no power of review of the appellate order on the part of the appellate authority. Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that the appellate authority has so far only issued a notice, consequent upon the second appeal filed by the respondent No. 3, and the petitioner has already appeared before the appellate authority in response to that notice and at this stage there cannot be any presumption that the appellate authority will review its earlier final order. In view of this position, Mr. Sarma submits that this petition is pre-mature. 3. In Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. In view of this position, Mr. Sarma submits that this petition is pre-mature. 3. In Patel Narshi Thakershi & Ors. vs. Pradyamansinghji Arjunsinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 it has been ruled that it well se­ttled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. In Sow Chandra Kanta & Another vs. Sheik Habis, AIR 1975 SC 156 & it has been held that a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in ea­rlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and over ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually ground or minor mistakes of inconse­quential import are obviously insufficient. In Mis. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi. AIR 1980 SC 674 it has been held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by the Supreme Court merely for the purpose of a re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. The nor­mal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Thus, finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omi­ssion or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Similarly in Avrur Singh vs. Union of India, AIR 1980 SC 2041 it has been reiterated that a review is not a routine procedure and the earlier order cannot be reviewed unless the court is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. It is true that in the provisions under section 13 of the Panchayati Raj Act there is no express provision for review. 4. As the petitioner has already appeared before the au­thority and only about six weeks of tenure are left, no useful purpose will be served by our interference at this stage. Even if a writ is issued, it is likely to be futile. Under similar circum­stances we have rejected such petitions on the same ground. This petition is also disposed of accordingly. Even if a writ is issued, it is likely to be futile. Under similar circum­stances we have rejected such petitions on the same ground. This petition is also disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.