Honble CHAUHAN, J.–This review petition has been filed against the order dated 29.7.99 by which the Contempt Petition No. 151/1999 was rejected holding that the respondents had not committed the contempt for the reason that this Court, vide order dated 10.12.98 directed the State Government to consider the representation of the petitioner and the same had been considered and appropriate order was passed. (2). Whatever may be merit of the review petition, the question of maintainability of review in contempt jurisdiction is to be considered. It is settled proposition of law that review jurisdiction cannot be exercised in inherent powers of the Court as held in a catena of decisions. Review is a creation of Statute and in absence of any provision for review, the Authority cannot entertain a review application and pass any order thereon. (Vide Baijnath Ram vs. Narainrao (1); Harbhanjan Singh vs. Karam Singh (2); Patel Narshi Thakershi vs. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji (3); The State of Assam & Anr. vs. J.N. Roy Biswas (4); Chandra Bhan Singh vs. Latafat Ullah Khan (5); and Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, Sitapur (6). (3). In State vs. Baldev Raj (7), a Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held that contempt proceedings, being quasi -criminal in nature, review petition is not maintainable against an order passed in contempt jurisdiction. Similar view has been reiterated by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Chet Ram vs.Khub Ram (9). (4). Undoubtedly, in criminal cases, power of review has not been conferred upon the Courts, rather it has been prohibited. Even the High Court, in exercise of its power under the Code of Criminal Procedure, does not have competence to review its judgment/order. (Vide Sankatha Singh vs. State of U.P. (10); State of Orissa vs. Ram Chandra Agrawal (11); and Mosst. Simrikhia vs. Smt. Dolley Mukherjee alias Chabbi Mukherjee and Anr. (12). (5). In case of Andre Paul Terence Ambard vs. The Attorney-General of Trinidad & Tobago (13), the Privy Council has observed that the proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act are quasi-criminal in nature and orders passed in those proceedings are to be treated as orders passed in criminal cases. In case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Honble the C.J.,S. Teja Singh and the Honble Judges of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala (14), the Supreme Court has taken the same view. In case of Sukhdev Singh vs. Honble the C.J.,S. Teja Singh and the Honble Judges of the Pepsu High Court at Patiala (14), the Supreme Court has taken the same view. A Full Bench of Punjab HIgh Court in the case of S. Sher Singh vs. R.P. Kapoor & Anr. (15) has held that the contempt proceedings are, by all means quasi-criminal. A Division Bench of Madras High Court in B. Yegananrayaniah, in Re: (16), has held that the contempt proceedings, being quasi-criminal in nature, the case against the respondents must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. (6). In Homi Rustomji vs. Sub-Inspector, Baig (17), it was observed as under:- ``The Court may have its suspicions but it cannot act upon them. These proceedings, though not criminal, are of a quasi-criminal nature and...where there is any reasonable doubt, the respondents are entitled to the benefit of such doubt. (7). In case of Shri Baradakanta Mishra vs. Registrar of Orissa High Court and Anr. (18), the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court has observed as under:- ``The High Court being the guardian of peoples right, it has been held repeatedly that contempt jurisdiction should be exercised with scrupulous care and only when the case is clear and beyond reasonable doubt. (Vide R. vs. Bray, (1907) 2 QB 36). (8). To sum up the legal proposition it is clear that the contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and all the principles of criminal jurisprudence are applicable. The only departure which is permissible is that the procedure applicable in the criminal law is not to be strictly followed. Review is not permissible in contempt matters as in absence of statutory provision, providing for review under the Contempt of Courts Act, nor inherent powers can be resorted to for this purpose. After deciding the contempt application, the Court becomes functus officio and such application cannot be entertained. (9). In R.L. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu (19), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court, as a Court of Record being clothed with a special jurisdiction, has also all incidental and necessary powers to effectuate the contempt jurisdiction. After deciding the contempt application, the Court becomes functus officio and such application cannot be entertained. (9). In R.L. Kapoor vs. State of Tamil Nadu (19), the Honble Supreme Court has observed that the High Court, as a Court of Record being clothed with a special jurisdiction, has also all incidental and necessary powers to effectuate the contempt jurisdiction. The ratio of the said judgment is that Court can exercise its power for restoring a contempt petition dismissed in default or correct typographical errors or in a like manner but it cannot be stretched to mean that Court can review its order in contempt jurisdiction. The scope of ``incidental and ancillary powers has also been explained by the Honble Supreme Court in a similar way in Income Tax Officer, Cannanore vs. Mohd. Kunhi (20); Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. Central Government Industrial Tribunal & Ors. (21); and Satnam Verma vs. Union of India & Ors. (22). (10). In R.R. Verma & ors. vs. The Union of India & Ors. (23), the Apex Court clarified that the principle that power to review must be conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication is inapplicable to decisions purely of an administrative nature for the reason that Government must be free to alter its policy or decision in administrative matters and thus, they cannot be hide-bound by the rules and restrictions of judicial procedure. (11). In the instant case, being purely judicial proceedings of quasi-criminal nature, such a course is not permissible and the Court is left with no option but to adopt hands-up policy. In view of the above, the review petition is dismissed as not maintainable.