S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) BY this Misc. Civil Application, titled as application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the applicant-Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad is praying for recalling the judgment dated 16/3/98 passed in Special Civil Application No. 6056/84. Second prayer has been made for condonation of delay, if any is there in filing thereof in the interest of justice. Third prayer has been made to grant such other and further relief as what this court may deem and fiit proper in the facts of this case. ( 2 ) THE facts and background which give rise to this Misc. Civil application before this court are to be stated, which are as follows. ( 3 ) THE respondent Shri Parshottambhai Chakubhai Patel was working as Sanitary Inspector with Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda. Under the order of Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda dated 16/8/84 he was dismissed from the services as he was found to be in a grave misconduct and which was proved in the departmental inquiry, held against him. This order of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda dismissing the respondent from the services was challenged by him in this court by filing Special Civil Application No. 6056/84. This Special Civil Application was presented in the court on 21/8/84. The matter was placed for preliminary hearing in the court and notices were issued to the respondents therein. The learned counsel for the parties are not at variance that this court has not granted any interim relief in favour of the respondent. After service of the notices, the matter was placed for admission in the court and the matter was admitted. Here also the learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that this court has not protected the respondent by grant of any interim relief in his favour at this stage also. ( 4 ) IN January, 1995 the proposal to merge Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad was going on at higher level of the State Government which the respondent was knowing well. ( 4 ) IN January, 1995 the proposal to merge Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda with Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad was going on at higher level of the State Government which the respondent was knowing well. It is stated that the Ahmedabad District Panchayat, Ahmedabad issued direction to the concerned panchayats including Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda not to make any change in its establishment or to increase liability of the Panchayat by increasing the wages or altering the position and other service conditions of the employees which would result in increase of liability of the Panchayat concerned. For this the necessary orders had been circulated to all the concerned officers of the panchayats by the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad vide his letter dated 18/1/85. The petitioner makes reference to the letter dated 1/11/85 of the respondent submitted to Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda for the settlement of the dispute of his dismissal from the service of the Panchayat. The State of Gujarat, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar vide its notification dated 5/11/85 issued a draft notification for altering the limits of city of Ahmedabad and in schedule A thereof Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda is there at Sr. No. 8. This was published in the Government Gazette, Extraordinary Part 1a. The application of the respondent dated 1/11/85 was considered by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda in its meeting held on 18/12/85 and vide its resolution No. 491 it has decided to reinstate the respondent back in services, however subject to the outcome of the result of the Special Civil Application No. 6056/84. It has further been resolved that the respondent shall not be entitled for the back-wages. Copy of this resolution is there on the record of this Misc. Civil Application at page No. 51 as Annexure G-1. In pursuance of this resolution of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda under the order dated 27/12/85 Annexure G-2 at page No. 52 of the Misc. Civil Application, of the President the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated back in the services w. e. f. 1/1/86 as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector. Civil Application at page No. 51 as Annexure G-1. In pursuance of this resolution of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda under the order dated 27/12/85 Annexure G-2 at page No. 52 of the Misc. Civil Application, of the President the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated back in the services w. e. f. 1/1/86 as Sanitary-cum-Food Inspector. ( 5 ) ON 22/2/86 a decision was taken by the Government of Gujarat, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar to merge various Nagarpalikas and gram panchayats including Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda by extending the limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad and as a result thereof the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda merged with the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad w. e. f. 23/2/86. On the record of this Misc. Civil Application the petitioner produced the order of the Government of Gujarat, Urban Development and Urban Housing Department, Gandhinagar dated Nil under which official merger of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda was ordered w. e. f. 23/2/86 on the terms and conditions as mentioned therein. As a result of this merger and the resolution passed by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda on 18/12/85 the respondent was taken in the corporation services by applicant. Under the order of the applicant dated 23/12/88 the respondent was ordered to be retired from the services of the Corporation w. e. f. 31/12/88 on attaining the age of superannuation subject to the outcome of the Special Civil Application No. 6056/84. Civil Application No. 1738/87 was filed by the respondent in this Special Civil Application for amendment of the same by joining Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad as respondent No. 3. A prayer has also been made for direction to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad to pay due claim of the petitioner. This Civil Application was came to be granted by this court on 9/11/87 and the applicant was ordered to be impleaded as respondent No. 3 in this Special Civil Application. It is not in dispute that the Applicant has engaged Mr. B. P. Tanna, Advocate as its counsel to appear on its behalf in this Special Civil Application. Mr. B. P. Tanna filed his vakalat patra in this case on behalf of the respondent No. 3 also. It is not in dispute that the Applicant has engaged Mr. B. P. Tanna, Advocate as its counsel to appear on its behalf in this Special Civil Application. Mr. B. P. Tanna filed his vakalat patra in this case on behalf of the respondent No. 3 also. The respondent filed another Civil Application No. 694/90 on 17/3/90 in this Special Civil Application and therein the prayer has been made for direction to the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad to pay him his provident fund amount, gratuity, arrears of D. A. as is paid to the similarly situated employees. ( 6 ) CIVIL Application No. 7694/90 was came to be rejected by this court at the relevant point of time. ( 7 ) THE special Civil Application No. 6056/84 was decided by this court on 16/3/1998. The same was dismissed as having become infructuous and was accordingly disposed of. However, in the order this Court has directed the respondents herein to pay to the petitioner therein his retiral dues and benefits, if the same are not paid, within three months. The respondent herein filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1136/98 for contempt of Courts order dated 16/3/1998 made in Special Civil Application No. 6056/84. This Misc. Civil Application was decided by this court on 20/8/1998 directing the applicant herein to comply with the order dated 16/3/1998. The respondent filed another Misc. Civil Application No. 2662/98 which came to be decided by this court on 29/1/19999. From the order of this court dated 29/1/98, I find that the learned counsel who was appearing for the petitioner therein stated that the amounts mentioned therein have been paid to the respondent under the head "gratuity amount, earned leave and pension". It is further stated that, only the amount of Rs. 3185. 00 remains to be paid to the respondent by way of provident fund and the cheque of the same is also ready. The respondent still was not satisfied as what he felt that amounts for which he is entitled have not been paid to him by the Corporation. He filed Special Civil Application No. 2662/99 before this court which is pending. ( 8 ) THIS Misc. Civil Application is contested by the respondent. He filed detailed reply to it on 25/8/1999. Further affidvait-in-reply on 6/9/1999 has also been filed. Along with the reply the respondent has also produced certain documents. He filed Special Civil Application No. 2662/99 before this court which is pending. ( 8 ) THIS Misc. Civil Application is contested by the respondent. He filed detailed reply to it on 25/8/1999. Further affidvait-in-reply on 6/9/1999 has also been filed. Along with the reply the respondent has also produced certain documents. ( 9 ) LEARNED counsel for the applicant contended that the respondent herein has got the order from this court in the Special Civil Application No. 6056/84 on 16/3/1998 without disclosing all the material facts. ( 10 ) IT has next been contended that the respondent has not disclosed the fact that, he was taken back in the services by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda subject to the decision of this court. He has further not disclosed the fact that the Corporation has ordered to be retired the petitioner subject to the decision of the Special Civil Application. ( 11 ) IN his submission, the respondent has manipulated his reinstatement in the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda, knowing well that the Panchayat is going to be merged with the Corporation. The members of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda, in fact has extended favour for the reasons best known to them to the respondent. Otherwise there would not have been any occasion for it to reinstate back the petitioner in the services where he was dismissed from the services on the ground of committing serious misconduct and in the Special Civil Application this court has also not stayed the dismissal order. ( 12 ) LASTLY, it is contended that in case the judgment given by this court in the Special Civil Application No. 6056/84 is not recalled, the Corporation will suffer irreparable loss and injury. The judgment which has been obtain by the respondent by not disclosing all these material facts, amounts to abuse of the process of the court and it is the case where the respondent still unduly benefited for which otherwise he was not entitled. The decision of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda to take back the petitioner in the services was as a result of malafide and favour extended to the respondent. ( 13 ) SHRI P. V. Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent raised three preliminary objections regarding maintainability of this Misc. Civil Application. The decision of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda to take back the petitioner in the services was as a result of malafide and favour extended to the respondent. ( 13 ) SHRI P. V. Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent raised three preliminary objections regarding maintainability of this Misc. Civil Application. Firstly, it is contended that this review application is not maintainable under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. Secondly, it is contended that, otherwise also this review application is not maintainable as there is no error apparent on the face of the order of this court dated 16/3/1998. Thirdly, this review application is barred by limitation. ( 14 ) ON merits Shri Hathi, learned counsel for the respondent contended that, in fact, the applicant has suppressed material facts from this court and by suppressing material facts, it has made an attempt before this court to get the order dated 16/3/1998 set aside from the court. ( 15 ) IT has next been contended that the respondent has not concealed any fact from this court. After his reinstatement he applied for the amendment of the Special Civil Application where he has disclosed all the facts regarding his reinstatement in the service by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda, merger of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda in the Corporation and taking him in the service by the Corporation also. He raised contention that the Corporation was party to the Special Civil Application. It has engaged an advocate to represent it and if that advocate has not remained present and contested the Special Civil Application, no fault can be found with the respondent. Very fact that the learned counsel has not put appearance and contested the Special Civil Application of the respondent goes to show that the Corporation has no objection in dismissal of the Special Civil Application as having become infructuous. Carrying this contention further Shri Hathi contended that the order of this court dated 16/3/1998 was not complied with and the respondent filed two Misc. Civil Applications. That order has been partly complied with. These facts were known to the Corporation and its officers, still they have not chosen to file an application to review the judgment. ( 16 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. Civil Applications. That order has been partly complied with. These facts were known to the Corporation and its officers, still they have not chosen to file an application to review the judgment. ( 16 ) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. ( 17 ) THE respondent therein and the petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 6056/84 was dismissed from the services of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda, after he was found guilty of a grave and serious misconduct. It is true that this order has been challenged by the respondent by filing Special Civil Application, but this court has not granted any interim relief in his favour. ( 18 ) IT is not in dispute that, in January, 1985 the proposal has been made by the State of Gujarat for extension of limits of the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, Ahmedabad. As a result thereof, limits of Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda would have fallen in the proposed extended limits of the Corporation. This proposal was going on at the higher level accordingly at the relevant time. ( 19 ) IT is also not in dispute that on 18/1/1985 the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad directed to all concerned panchayats of the area which includes Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda not to make any change in the establishment or not to increase liabilities of the Panchayat by increasing wages of employees or altering position thereof and other service conditions which would result in increase of liabilities of the Panchayat. So it is well known and it would have also been in the knowledge of the respondent that the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda has to be merged in the Corporation. The members of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda were certainly well known of these facts. The draft of proposal has been published by the State of Gujarat on 5/11/1985. ( 20 ) IN this notification and schedule thereto the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda has found place at serial No. 8. Though to overcome and to patch many more important facts and to create confusion, an application was submitted by the respondent on which the date is mentioned of 19. 11. 1985 which seems to be not correct. It appears to be deliberate attempt to give ante date to this application. Though to overcome and to patch many more important facts and to create confusion, an application was submitted by the respondent on which the date is mentioned of 19. 11. 1985 which seems to be not correct. It appears to be deliberate attempt to give ante date to this application. In the facts of this case, the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant that this application was given after 5. 11. 1985 is not without substance. When the respondent was dismissed from the services and this court has not stayed that order and sub-judiced in this court no justification is there in this application of the respondent. Not only this, I fail to see any justification in the action of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda to take the decision to reinstate the respondent back in the service after this notification dated 5. 11. 1985 and the letter of the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad dated 18. 11. 1985 is wholly motivated and an example of favouritism. . ( 21 ) FROM the facts which have come on the record coupled with the letter of the District Development Officer, District Panchayat, Ahmedabad dated 18. 11. 1985, draft notification extending the limits of the city of Ahmedabad dated 5. 11. 1985, it is a clear case where this reinstatement of the respondent was ordered for ulterior motive and consideration. It is a clear case of reinstatement of the respondent by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda as a result of the collusion between the respondent and members of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda. It is not the case of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda that it has reviewed its earlier decision of dismissing the respondent from the services for his proved misconduct on merits. The resolution which has been made and the order of the reinstatement which has been passed go to show that it is a clear case of favouritism on some extraneous consideration of the members of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda. The reinstatement of the respondent subject to the decision of the Special Civil Application goes to show that, it has been done with purpose so that the respondent may come or become an employee of the Corporation. The stage at which this decision has been taken by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda was beyond its competence and authority. The reinstatement of the respondent subject to the decision of the Special Civil Application goes to show that, it has been done with purpose so that the respondent may come or become an employee of the Corporation. The stage at which this decision has been taken by the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda was beyond its competence and authority. It is a clear case of increasing liabilities of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda or giving undue advantage to the respondent. The respondent who otherwise would not have become an employee of the Corporation by this resolution and reinstatement order it is made possible for him by the Panchayat. ( 22 ) THOUGH the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda has acted malafide and in a manner to favour the respondent for obvious undisclosed extraneous consideration, the Corporation is also equally responsible for its carelessness and unmindful all the consequences of this resolution of the Panchayat and order of reinstatement of the respondent. The respondent is not an ordinary employee. He has not only manipulated his reinstatement in the services of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda, but he has also managed his entry and continuation in the Corporations service till he attained the age of superannuation. ( 23 ) THE officers of the Corporation who are concerned with the matter or scrutiny thereof have shut their eyes on very very important document, that is, resolution and the order of reinstatement of the respondent wherein it is clearly mentioned that he has been reinstated in the services subject to the decision of the Special Civil Application No. 6056/84. If, they would not have any extraneous consideration, certainly they could have detected this fact then and there the decision would have been taken not to take back the respondent in the services or the appropriate steps would have been taken to approach to this court for necessary directions in this respect. The resolution of the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda dated 18. 12. 1985 as well as the order passed in pursuance thereof of the reinstatement of the respondent in the services were not binding on the Corporation. Even, a man of normal understanding, prudence and knowledge would have taken it to be a manipulated resolution and the order by the respondent in collusion with the members of the then Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda. Even, a man of normal understanding, prudence and knowledge would have taken it to be a manipulated resolution and the order by the respondent in collusion with the members of the then Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda. ( 24 ) IT is really a sorry state of affairs which are prevailing in the Corporation where it has not only permitted the respondent to enter in its services but allowed him to continue as such till he attained the age of superannuation. If, the Naroda Nagar Panchayat, Naroda is blame worthy for all these favouritisms, nepotism, conspiracy and collusions with the respondent, equally the concerned Corporation officers are also equally responsible for the same. ( 25 ) WORST part is that at the stage when the Special Civil Application has come up for hearing, nobody has bothered to appear for the Corporation. The record of the Special Civil Application is clear and the respondent is not blame worthy of suppression of material fact. He disclosed all the necessary material facts in the Special Civil Application by amending the same. The respondent has also taken care to implead the Corporation as party. On his application this court has permitted him to implead the Corporation as party. The notice has been issued to the Corporation of the proceedings and the Corporation engaged the advocate. It is a different matter that the Corporation has not taken care to see that its advocate is being properly assisted by the officers of the Corporation to file reply to the Special Civil Application and contest same. At this stage also, it appears that in the Corporation somebody was there to favour or come in the clutch of the respondent. Otherwise the officers of the Corporation would have given necessary instructions to its advocate and has gone to his office to get prepare the reply and file the same in the court. They should have taken all care and to see that as and when the matter is listed on board, their counsel appear. So, it is the case where the Corporation itself is equally responsible for this decision against it. ( 26 ) NOW I may advert to the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the Misc. Civil Application. So, it is the case where the Corporation itself is equally responsible for this decision against it. ( 26 ) NOW I may advert to the preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondents regarding maintainability of the Misc. Civil Application. In the title of Special Civil Application, the applicant-original respondent No. 3 has mentioned it to be an application for review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Code of Civil Procedure has been amended vide the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976. Section 141 of Code reads as under :- S. 141. Miscellaneous Proceedings -"the procedure provided in this Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. Explanation ; In this section, the expression "proceedings" includes proceedings under Order IX but does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. " ( 27 ) THE provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 after amendment in the year 1976 are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Special Civil Application No. 6056/84 was filed by the original petitioner-respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India application filed by the applicant-original respondent No. 3 for review of the decision given in the Special Civil Application is certainly not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ( 28 ) THE Limitation Act, 1963 provides the limitation within which application for review of the judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has to be filed. This provision of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as follows:- @@@ The Schedule 124. For a review of thirty the date of the judgment by a court days. decree or order. other than Supreme court. . . . . . T. . . . . . ( 29 ) IF we go by the facts that this review application is filed by the applicant-original respondent under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the provisions of Limitation Act apply to it certainly it is not maintainable only but is also barred by limitation. . . . . ( 29 ) IF we go by the facts that this review application is filed by the applicant-original respondent under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the provisions of Limitation Act apply to it certainly it is not maintainable only but is also barred by limitation. The judgment in this Special Civil Application was given by the court on 16/3/1998 and this review application is filed on 15/7/99. The limitation for filing of the review of judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is of 30 days and it is certainly beyond limitation if we go by the title of the application and further if it is accepted that the review of the order of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not permissible under the said provision. The provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are not applicable to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution as what it is barred by section 141 of Code of Civil Procedure. The next question which falls for consideration is whether the order of this court given in this Special Civil application No. 6056/84 on 16/3/98 is reviewable or not. The learned counsel for the respondents has not raised any contention that the order of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution is not reviewable. It is in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in AIR 1979 SC 1047 the apex court has held that the High Court has the power to review its own order or judgment given in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The reference may have to another decision of the apex court in the case of Indian Bank Vs. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550 . ( 30 ) SO there is a catena of authorities of the apex court wherein it has been held that this court has power of review of its own order or judgment made in the proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in 1996 (5) SCC 550 . ( 30 ) SO there is a catena of authorities of the apex court wherein it has been held that this court has power of review of its own order or judgment made in the proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution of India. ( 31 ) THE learned counsel for the applicant contended that otherwise also the court of plenary jurisdiction has inherent powers to recall its own judgment or order where it is satisfied that it has been obtained by the party concerned by committing fraud on the court. It has further been contended that this power of review is available also to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution where it is satisfied that there is an error apparent on the face of the order or judgment made in proceedings under Article 226 of Constitution. In the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma (supra) the apex court has laid down in what circumstances and within what limit the power of review is available to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India itself to review its own order or judgment made under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The apex court in para 3 of this judgment held as under :"the Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessors order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exhibits A/1 and A/3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single Writ Petition, `settlement made in favour of the different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ) there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court. " ( 32 ) I do not find any merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, regarding maintainability of Misc. Civil Application as well as on the question of limitation. ( 33 ) ON merits, from the judgment of the court dated 9th March 1998 in special civil application, I find that during the course of arguments, it appears that attention has not been drawn of the court to the fact that the reinstatement of respondent by Naroda Nagar Panchayat, the absorption of the petitioner in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and his retirement from services was subject to the decision of the special civil application. Disclosing of this fact in special civil application is one thing but not to focus the attention of this court on this important aspect of the matter is another thing. Mere production of the documents as well as making averments, it is difficult to accept that the court would have gone through all these things. The learned counsel are there to bring these things to the notice of the court and this has not been done in the present case. In case it would have been brought to the notice of the court that the petitioners reinstatement, absorption and retirement were subject to the decision of this court probably court would not have made the decision as dismissing the petition as having become infructuous. It is not in dispute that the respondent was dismissed from services after serious charges were proved against him in departmental inquiry. It is not in dispute that the respondent was dismissed from services after serious charges were proved against him in departmental inquiry. It is not the case where the order of dismissal of respondent from services was reviewed by the appointing authority and he was exonerated of the charges. It is a case where the petitioner has got all these orders from the Naroda Nagar Panchayat in what facts and circumstances which clearly are borne out from the facts of this case. To oblige the petitioner, all those orders have been passed, otherwise, there was no occasion to pass such order by the Nagar Panchayat. There is an error apparent on the face of the order of this court and it is a fit case for review of this order. Otherwise also, the respondent himself is not satisfied with this order. ( 34 ) THE order of this court dated 16/03/1998 has been challenged by the respondent by filing L. P. A. No. 502/98 which is pending in this court. The memo of appeal has been produced on record of the M. C. A. by learned counsel for respondent and from the very first line of this memo, it is a case where the respondent felt aggrieved of the dismissal of his special civil application as having become infructuous. From the grounds of appeal, it is clearly borne out that the respondent himself is praying that this petition should have been decided on merits. Prayer clause is very important in appeal wherein the respondent prayed for quashing and setting aside of the judgment dated 16. 3. 98 and the direction to the learned single judge to hear and dispose of the special civil application on merits and/or to direct the learned single judge to decide the petition afresh. Prayer made in the LPA reads as under: (A) to allow this Appeal with costs; (B) to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16. 3. 98 and the direction to the learned single judge to hear and dispose of the special civil application on merits and/or to direct the learned single judge to decide the petition afresh. Prayer made in the LPA reads as under: (A) to allow this Appeal with costs; (B) to quash and set aside the judgment and order dated 16. 3. 98 passed by the learned single judge (R. A. Mehta, J.), in special civil application No. 6056/84; (C) to hear and dispose of the said special civil application on merits and/or to direct the learned single judge to decide the petition afresh; (D) to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the circumstances of the case ( 35 ) FROM this LPA, it is clear that the respondent himself also is not satisfied with the judgment. This is another ground on which this application deserves to be granted. In fact, by granting of the review, what this court is doing is to accept the very prayer made by respondent in the LPA. ( 36 ) IN the result, this M. C. A. succeeds and the same is allowed and the order dated 1 6/03/1998, passed in special civil application NO. 6056 of 1984 is recalled and the special civil application is restored to its original number to be heard and finally decided in accordance with law on merits. The office is directed to place the special civil application for final hearing in the court forthwith. .