J. N. BHATT, J. ( 1 ) AFTER having heard, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned AGP Mr. Bhate and considering the entire factual matrix, this Court has no hesitation in finding, that the application for review is without any substance and does not answer the legibility parameters for the invocation of the review jurisdiction analogous to the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the C. P. C. ( 2 ) MR. PUJARA has raised following three contentions: (I) That the market rent charged at the rate of Rs. 1920/- p. m. is not permissible, as the order of allotment contained lesser amount in case of over stay of the Government quarter during the course of the employment at that place. (II) That the period of unauthorised use and occupation after the retransfer of the petitioner, it was not competent for the Government to levy market rent for unauthorised occupation. In that, he has submitted that the transfer was on 11/2/90 and there was a retransfer on 6/4/93. (III) That in so many cases, the authority concerned has passed order for regularisation of unauthorised use and occupation of the Government quarter allotted to the employee and the representation in this behalf made by the petitioner to the authority pursuant to the observations in last para of the order of this Court recorded on 17/8/94, the respondent authority has failed to comply with. ( 3 ) HIGHLIGHTING of recognised parameters for invocation of the review jurisdiction need not detain us any longer, since they are well expounded and very much celebrated. The aforesaid grounds urged before this Court did not even remotely come nearer to periphery of this celebrated principle. Apart from that, the first two grounds are such which, if not properly evaluated, the remedy lies elsewhere and not in asking for review. In so far as, third ground is concerned it is altogether a matter which is within discretionary power of the authority concerned and to be exercised in a given set of facts which cannot form part of a review application. ( 4 ) IT is in this context, this Court is left with no alternative but to raise its hands in helplessness from accepting any one of the contentions raised by Learned Advocate Mr. Pujara and the review application deserves only and only one legal fate of rejection. ( 4 ) IT is in this context, this Court is left with no alternative but to raise its hands in helplessness from accepting any one of the contentions raised by Learned Advocate Mr. Pujara and the review application deserves only and only one legal fate of rejection. Accordingly, it is rejected. Rule discharged. No costs. .