ORDER Dipak Misra, J. Thus spoke Krishna Iyer, J. in a separate judgment rendered in the case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, in his inimitable and consummate style: A plea for review, unless the first judicial review is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. We have said so in the beginning as the petitioner who has argued the present application for review had sought our indulgence for reappraisal of the factual scenario in entirety as if an application for review is a salubrious incursion into the order that had come into existence. The claim of the petitioner may be quite dexterous and innovative and he may be in a position to propone his contention in an insouciant manner for the simon pure reason he has entertained a grievance which, to put it euphemistically, a sanguine one, but a significant one, our obligation in law while dealing with an application for review, albeit, inherent because of the constitutional scheme we are obligated to be guided by the parameters of law and hence, we have to see whether the petitioner has any substratum to show that the first order is manifestly distorted or exposes any mistake apparent on the face of the record or exhibits lack of inherent jurisdiction or anything that shocks the judicial conscience within the acceptable legal ken. The factual 'expose' giving rise to the review application is that this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while exercising the power of judicial superintendence dealt with the orders passed by the M.P. Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No. 1850/89 and in M.A. No. 338/2000 whereby the claims of the petitioner pertaining to transfer allowance, house rent allowance and such other demands stood negatived by the Tribunal. This Court considering the points urged in the writ petition and the stance putforth by the contesting respondents and taking note of the proponements came to hold that the findings recorded by the Tribunal relating to limitation was impeccable and did not warrant any interference. While saying so we had adverted to the facet relating to grant of interest pertaining to the payment of increment to the petitioner in the year 1995. This Court took note of the fact that the increment for 12 months and TA bills were cleared during the pendency of the litigation. While saying so we had adverted to the facet relating to grant of interest pertaining to the payment of increment to the petitioner in the year 1995. This Court took note of the fact that the increment for 12 months and TA bills were cleared during the pendency of the litigation. It is noteworthy to mention here at that juncture the petitioner submitted that when a part of the claim was suo motu sanctioned by the Department the rest. of the claim should have been accepted but the said submission did not carry weight with us and we negatived the aforesaid contention. In course of hearing of the writ petition the petitioner had drawn our attention to paragraph 4.6 of the petition to show how the interest should be computed. Considering the aforesaid aspect we expressed as under: ...Ordinarily we would have asked the respondent to compute the interest periodically applying the rate of interest stipulated by the Reserve Bank of India meant for deposits in a nationalised bank in the prevalent years but we think it apposite to fix a consolidated sum towards interest to give the controversy a decent burial so that the problem of arithmetic does not require to come to play. Considering the totality of circumstances, we suggested Rs. 15,000/- to be the appropriate sum towards interest and Mr. V.K. Tankha, learned Advocate General for the State very fairly acceded to that. Keeping in view the totality of circumstances a consolidated sum was fixed and the same was directed to be paid to the petitioner. In the instant application the petitioner has putforth that the fixing of the amount has caused grave injustice to him inasmuch as the interest could have been calculated as it related to the realm of pure arithmetic. In course of hearing, the same has been canvassed. An order is reviewed under certain fixed parameters. In the case of Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and others, AIR 1922 PC 112 it was held that the concept of 'sufficient reason' must be interpreted as meaning a reason sufficient of grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously. Their Lordships referred to the ground mentioned in the previous clauses relating to review under the Code of Civil Procedure. Their Lordships referred to the ground mentioned in the previous clauses relating to review under the Code of Civil Procedure. In the case of AIR 1934 213 (Privy Council) it has been clearly held that a Court hearing an application for review has no jurisdiction to order review because it was of the opinion that different conclusion should have been arrived at. In the case of Stiaram v. Kantram, 12 N L J 148 the Full Bench expressed the view that a review cannot be entertained on the ground that the previous decision of the case had proceeded upon an incorrect exposition of the law. The question of hardship to the applicant does not arise in such a case. In the case of Mohammad Hasan Khan vs. Ahmad Hafiz Ahmad Ali Khan and another, 1957 MPLJ 476 : AIR 1957 Nag 97 their Lordships referred to the decision rendered in the case of AIR 1949 106 (Federal Court) and came to hold that, it does not appear that a review of Judgment which proceeded upon an incorrect exposition of law is covered by any of the clauses under order 47 Rule 1 and, therefore, a decision is erroneous is no ground for ordering review. In the case of M/s Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, their Lordships held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error where no elaborate argument is required. In the case of Manu Pujhari and Another Vs. State of Orissa, it has been held that an erroneous view of law in the matter or wrong application of law or failure to apply correct law has never been treated as a mistake or error apparent on the face of record. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dev Krishna and Another Vs. Dhani Ram Saligram, held that a mistake to be apparent, should be one which is only to be pointed out to be corrected immediately, without any argument. If the court has entered into a discussion of the pros and cons and has justified one of the two alternative views then certainly the mistake, if any, is not apparent or patent. Dhani Ram Saligram, held that a mistake to be apparent, should be one which is only to be pointed out to be corrected immediately, without any argument. If the court has entered into a discussion of the pros and cons and has justified one of the two alternative views then certainly the mistake, if any, is not apparent or patent. Recently in the case of Susheela Naik and another vs. G.K. Naik, (2000) 9 SCC 366 their Lordships in paragraph 3 posed the question and answered the same in paragraph 4. We think it essential to quote both the paragraphs: 3. The short question is when the learned Single Judge of the High Court remanded the proceedings for fresh decision to the first appellate court, in review proceedings another learned Single Judge could have almost sat in appeal. In our view, only on the ground that the review proceedings were heard by treating them almost as appeal the orders could not be sustained and, therefore, the impugned orders are set aside and the remand order passed by the learned Single Judge earlier is confirmed subject to the clarification that the question of injunction agitated by the appellants will have to be examined only on the basis of prima facie case put forward by the plaintiffs concerned and the question of title will not be treated to be required to be considered on merits so as to bind the parties in the light of the pleadings as they stand today. The present factual matrix is to be tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid enunciation of law. The facts clearly evince that the question of interest was raised before this Court and we had applied our mind to the said spectrum and considering the totality of circumstances issued such directions as have been indicated hereinabove. It is not a case where there was any omission. It is not a case where a manifest or patent error has occurred. Submission of the petitioner is that the calculation being arithmetical could have been done. It is not a case where there was any omission. It is not a case where a manifest or patent error has occurred. Submission of the petitioner is that the calculation being arithmetical could have been done. Whether the said submission is valid or not we are not inclined to dwell upon the same as we had deliberately quantified a specified sum The petitioner may have fostered and nurtured a relentless and implacable attitude to fight for palliation of his grievance thinking that an application for review is an oasis and may have the tenacity and forbearance to pursue the same but we are impelled in law to say that the grounds putforth seeking review being fragile, patent error being imperceptible, we cannot but decline the relief sought for. Resultantly, the application, being sans substance, stands dismissed in limine. Final Result : Dismissed