DEVINDER GUPTA ( 1 ) THE applicants are seeking review of the judgment delivered by us on 21. 7. 2000 in CW 1770/89. ( 2 ) BY a common judgment delivered on 21. 7. 2000 in Nirmal Kumar Jain and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others (LPA 118/89), number of other writ petitions were disposed of. CW 1770/89 filed by the applicants was also disposed of along with the said appeal. Review is sought on the ground that in the judgment under reference, mainly the points raised in LPA 118/89 have been touched and discussed. Number of issues raised by the applicants in their writ petition (CW 1770/89), which were quite distinct and different from the issues raised in LPA 118/ 89 have neither been noticed nor decided. Without adverting to the points, which were urged on behalf of the applicants and without any adjudication on merits on the submission made on their behalf, their writ petition has been disposed of by the judgment under reference. ( 3 ) APPLICANTS case was that in 1954-55, Central Government introduced a scheme dealing with disbursement of loan by Central Government to various State Governments to enable persons in low income group to have their own house. Pursuant to the said scheme, loan was disbursed to Municipal Corporation of Delhi also and quarters at Nimri Colony, Azadpur and Daka were constructed with the loan disbursed by the Central Government. Therefore, their case was not different from the case, which was the subject matter of CW 203/72 decided on 12. 12. 1984, titled as Kalyan Samiti Nimri Colony (Regd.) and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi etc. They ought to have been treated similarly since the petitioner in Kalyan Samiti Nimri Colony s case (supra) had already been allotted flats, which were in their occupation pursuant to implementation of the scheme and pursuant to the decision of this Court. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel for the applicants, but find no substance therein that the issues raised in the writ petition and submissions made at the Bar have not been noticed and not been decided. Submissions, which were made at the Bar clearly find mention in the judgment and whatever is stated in the judgment at pages 27,28,34 and 40 is a complete answer to what is now urged on behalf of the applicants. Submissions, which were made at the Bar clearly find mention in the judgment and whatever is stated in the judgment at pages 27,28,34 and 40 is a complete answer to what is now urged on behalf of the applicants. It is not correct to say that such submissions were not taken into consideration. ( 4 ) NONE of the grounds taken in this petition are sufficient to review the judgment. Moreover, we have been informed that on 21. 9. 2000 the Supreme Court has dismissed a batch of Special Leave Petitions preferred against our decision. Order has been passed in one of the said Special Leave Petitions in Shri B. S. Khurana and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others S. L. P (Civil) No. 13639/2000.