Honble SHARMA, J.–Contentions raised in all the review petitions are analogous therefore they are being disposed of by a common order. (2). Before proceeding further it will be advantageous to consider the scope of review. (3). Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Sow Chandra Kanta & Anr. vs. Sheik Habib (1) indicated that a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is properly only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility . A mere repetition though different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. (4). In Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (2), it was propounded in para 8 thus- ``............It has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may coneivably be two opinions. (5). This Court in Govind Poojara vs. Mohan Lal & Ors. (3), held that no review is maintainable on ground that impugned order was highly erroneous or wrong. (6). In the order dated Feb.24, 1998, it was indicated in para 14 thus : ``The impugned orders have been passed with the consent of the State of Rajasthan. Therefore, in my view the State is estopped from assailing the said ord- ers by filing these appeals. No where in the appeals the State contended that it did not give consent. Under these circumstances I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders passed by the learned court below. (7). I am unable to pursuade myself to agree with the submissions of Shri S.M. Mehta, learned Advocate General. I do not see any error apparent on the face of the record. The prayer clause of the appeals preferred by the State demonstrates that the State has not assailed the second part of the impugned orders whereby the State was restrained from withholding amounts due under other pending bills to the company. The State has only requested to modify the impugned order by asking the company to furnish the fresh Bank guarantee in the sum of the amount equi- valent to the excess payment to the company. The State has only requested to modify the impugned order by asking the company to furnish the fresh Bank guarantee in the sum of the amount equi- valent to the excess payment to the company. (8). While exercising powers of review I cannot act as appellate court. I cannot reappreciate the arguments. The impugned order may be erroneous in the eyes of the petitioners but I do not see any error apparent which goes in the root of the matter. (9). Consequently, the review petitions stand dismissed. The Arbitrator is expected to dispose of the matter expeditiously.