R.B. MISRA, J.— Heard learned Advocate General with Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State of Tripura the review Petitioners and Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel with Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/The Tripura Government Pensioner's Association. 2. The present review petition preferred under chapter X of Gauhati High Court Rules is for reviewing the Judgment and Order dated 25.06.97 passed by Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No. 330/97, affirming the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.97 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.R. No. 259/ 95 preferred by "The Tripura Government Pensioner's Association" (in short called "Writ petitioners's Association" hereinafter.). 3. In order to appreciate the background of filing the review petition, it is necessary to know the facts and circumstances of the writ appeal as well as the Writ petition in conspectus as follows:- (i) The State Government of Tripura Finance Department vide notification dated 08.08.78 adopted Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972, in short called 'CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972' with certain modification for the benefit of its retired employees and by subsequent notification dated 02.07.92 adopted the provisions of Government of India's notification No. 42(30)-P & PW/89-E dated 22.01.91 regarding CCS (Pension) Amendment Rules, 1991 introducing 'Rule 55A' in 'CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972' providing for Dearness Relief on Pension/Family pension. The Clause 2(1) of Government of India's notification dated 22.01.91 is extracted as below: "Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of dearness relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Govt. The Clause 2(1) of Government of India's notification dated 22.01.91 is extracted as below: "Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of dearness relief at such rates and subject to such conditions as the Central Govt. may specify from time to time." (ii) The Writ petitioners Association preferred a Writ petition (C.R. No. 259/95) before this High Court (Single Judge) contending in paragraph 13 of same as below: "Notification dated 08.08.1978 adopting C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 after the amendment in Rule 55-A has to be read as 'relief against price may be granted to be pensioners and family pensioners in the form of Dearness Relief at such rate and subject to such conditions as State Government may specify from time to time." (iii) A prayer was also made for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the State Government to pay dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners particularly after adoption of amendment of the Pension Rules, The Writ petition after adjudication was allowed by the High Court (Single Judge) on 22.04.97 with direction to pay the pensioners, Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners and to clear 42% of the unpaid Dearness Relief by a certain date. In the said judgment, the learned Single Judge also noted that as on 01.04.1995, the State Government had paid Dearness Relief up to 83%, whereas, the Central Government had paid Dearness Relief up to 125% as on 01.04.1995 and there was a clear gap of 42% between the Dearness Relief paid by the State Government and what had been paid by the Central Government and therefore this Court directed the State Government to pay 20% bf the unpaid Dearness Relief by 22.06,1997 and the balance 22% of the Dearness Relief by 22.08.1997. It is also necessary to quote relevant paragraph 26 and 28 of the order dated 22.04.97 which reads as below: "26: "I, therefore, see no reason why the relief sought for in this writ petition should not be allowed. It is also necessary to quote relevant paragraph 26 and 28 of the order dated 22.04.97 which reads as below: "26: "I, therefore, see no reason why the relief sought for in this writ petition should not be allowed. The petition is allowed and accordingly respondents are directed to pay its pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners." "28:"------Therefore, I consider it appropriate that the dues should be paid within a reasonable time and accordingly I order and direct the respondents to pay 20% of the unpaid Dearness Relief out of 42% latest by 22"d June, 1997 minus the amount, if any, is paid towards Dearness Relief during pendency of the Writ Petition and the balance of 22% of the Dearness Relief by 22nd August, 1997. Keeping in view of the hardship which the pensioners are passing through at this old age I hope that the Government of Tripura shall not cause delay in clearing up the dues within the time limit I have mentioned above." (iv) Being aggrieved, the State Government preferred a Writ Appeal No. 330/ 97 against the above order dated 22.04.97 which was disposed of by Division Bench Of this High Court vide an order dated 25.07.97, (the impugned order in present Review Petition) in reference to the concessions of. learned Advocate General, State of Tripura thereby extending the period of payment to be made to the pensioners. The relevant paragraph-2 of the said order is quoted as below: - "2: "Out of all the grounds taken in SB-peal to attack the judgment of tiieleaiiid Single Judge, the learned AdvocaleGen-eral for the State of Trip^ Jiaf not pressed any other point except one point that in the operative portion ofthe judgment, as stated above, a time schedule is fixed to enable the State of Tripura to make good the payment and the grievance of the appellants is that regard being had to the resources mobilized by the State of Tripura in these hard days, it is not possible to comply with the direction of the Court within the time schedule fixed in paragraph 28 of the judgment under appeal." (v) The 'writ petitioners' Association' filed Contempt Petition No. 32/1997 (which was heard on 29.10.98 and decided on 04.11.98). However, in the interregnum, the State Government granted arrear dearness relief to the members of 'writ petitioners Association' by a notification dated 11.02.1998. However, in the interregnum, the State Government granted arrear dearness relief to the members of 'writ petitioners Association' by a notification dated 11.02.1998. However, the State Government in order to clarify the notification dated 02.07.92 has issued a fresh notification dated 27.10.98 under Article 309 of the Constitution of India indicating payment of Dearness Relief on Pension/ Family pension as such rate as the State Government may specify from time to time in the case of State Government employees. It appears, one Sri Malin Kanta Paul filed a writ petition No. 62 of 2000 before this Court challenging the said notification dated 27.10.98, which however was dismissed on 09.082002. A Writ Appeal No. 128/ 2002 preferred against the said order was allowed on 21.05.2004 by the Division Bench of this High Court without interfering in the notification dated 27.10.98 with observation that the mandamus issued by the Judgment dated 22,04.97 in C.R. No. 259/95 as upheld in W.A. No. 330/97 is to be followed by the State Government and its functionaries so long as foundation for issuance of mandamus exists. It was also observed in the order dated 21.05.2004 that if the State Government does not have sufficient fund to pay the Dear-ness Relief the mandamus issued will automatically become inexecutable, but merely by issuance of the notification dated 27.10.98 the State Government cannot say that the basis for the mandamus stands changed. It was also observed in the said order that the State Government cannot sit on the judgment and wisdom of mandamus issued in Civil Rule No. 259/95. If any error has to be reviewed or corrected, it can be done only by the Court, which has passed the order. It was indicated that Notification dated 27.10.1998 is within the authority of the State to issue inasmuch as the State has power to amend the terms and conditions of the service of its employees. However, being aggrieved, the State Government preferred Special Leave Petition No. 17901/04 against the order dated 21.05.2004 which however was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. (vi) The present review petition was preferred with an application for condonation of considerable delay, however, after condonation of such delay by this Court the present review petition when came before this Court for admission a prayer was made for and on behalf of State of Tripura to prefer an application and accordingly a Civil Misc. (vi) The present review petition was preferred with an application for condonation of considerable delay, however, after condonation of such delay by this Court the present review petition when came before this Court for admission a prayer was made for and on behalf of State of Tripura to prefer an application and accordingly a Civil Misc. Application No. 12/06 has been filed for bringing amendments incorporating addition pleadings and grounds in the present Review Petition. The af-fidavit-in-reply has also been filed by the 'writ petitioners Association'. 4. In the present case following question emerges for consideration. "Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case the true import and applicability of'Rules 55 A' of CCS (Pension) Amendment Rule 1991 as adopted by the State of Tripusra could be ignored without being dealt wit or adjudicated upon and merely in reference to the concession of learned Advocate General of State given to the Court under misconception of law and facts under erroneous instructions of State functionaries, and issuance of mandamus with direction to the State for the payment of dearness relief on pension/family pension, indefinitely/perpetually to the government pensioners at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners would be relevant material aspects for bringing the impugned order within the ambit and scope of order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the same on the ground of "error ap- • parent on the face of the record" or "for any other sufficient reason? 5. In order to appreciate correctly and to deal the admissibility of present Review Petition it is necessary to note the contents of paragraph-? presented by the State and as noted by this Court in its order dated 04.11.1998 while disposing Contempt Petition No. 32/1997 as below: "7. In the present case, it appears from the Counter-Affidavit filed by the respondents-1 and 2 as well as the submissions made by Mr. presented by the State and as noted by this Court in its order dated 04.11.1998 while disposing Contempt Petition No. 32/1997 as below: "7. In the present case, it appears from the Counter-Affidavit filed by the respondents-1 and 2 as well as the submissions made by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the respondents were under an erroneous impression that they were only required by the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.1997 to pay the dues towards the unpaid Dearness Relief on 42% which was found to be the gap between the State Government rates and the Central Government rates as'on 01.04.1995/ 01.01.1995 and that by the said Judgment and Order they were not required to pay Dearness Relief at the rates applicable to the Central Government Pensioners as and when announced by the Central Government after 01.01.1995, and that the State Government had the liberty to pay Dearness Relief to its pensioners at the rates applicable to the Central Government pensioners as and when it decided depending upon its resources, etc. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The respondents appeared to have entertained the misconception that the payment of Dear-ness Relief was to be made to the State Government pensioners at the rates applicable to the Central Government pensioners after 01.01.1995 at the discretion of the State Government as and when the State Government decided depending upon it's resources even though there was no amendment to the Rules." 6. In support of Review Petition following main arguments have been advanced by learned Advocate General, State of Tripura: (i) Even after merger of order dated 22.04.1997 of single Judge in the impugned order dated 25.06.1997 of Division Bench passed in Writ Appeal No. 330 of 1997 an error apparent on the face of the record continues to subsist in the impugned order regarding concerned issue inasmuch as while in paragraph-13 of the Writ Petition the Writ petitioners themselves had submitted that 'Rules 55 A' of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, should be read as 'Relief against price rise may be granted to the pensioners and family pensioners in the form of Dearness Relief at such rate and subject to such conditions as State Government may specify from time to time', however, the impugned order contains a continuing mandamus to the effect that the State Government of Tripura is directed to pay its pensioners Dearness Relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government Pensioners indefinitely. (ii) There is an 'error apparent on the face of the record' in the impugned order inasmuch as on mere admission of learned Advocate General to the effect that the fund allocated by 10th Finance Commission towards the pension for the financial year 1995-1996 had actually been received by the State Government of Tripura, and this Court was satisfied that there was no reason why the relief sought for in the Writ petition should not be allowed and this Court while directing the State Government to pay the then outstanding dearness relief of 42% in two installments was pleased to record a continuing/perpetual mandamus to the State Government to pay its pensioners dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners not confined to the year 1995-1996 only. (iii) This Court being a Court of record has to give generous indulgence to rectify the 'error apparent on the face of the record' which has crept on, in the impugned order fromjts inception whereby, a mandamus upon the State Government is continuing indefinitely to pay its pensioners dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners while 'Rule 55A' of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, having the force of law was introduced in exercise of the powers contained in proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India by the State of Tripura, providing scope to the State Government to determine the rate of dearness relief for its pensioners and family pensioners as it may specify from time to time, (iv) The continuing mandamus to pay dearness relief at the rate of Central Government persists in the impugned order of this court even though it was in derogation to the provisions of 'Rule 5 5A' lawfully adopted with the applicable modifications by the State Government. (v) There cannot be an estoppel against statute and any concession made by the then learned Advocate General for and on behalf of the State during course of hearing of the Writ Petition or of Writ Appeal defeating any provision of the enforceable law, cannot bind the State Government indefinitely when the State Government might take policy decision from time to time depending upon the availability of its financial resources and various other factors to cope up greater need of public. (vi) Even though the then learned Advocate General had only intended to concede that the State Government was willing to make the payment of dear-ness relief of 42% as then outstanding in two installments within an extended period, however the impugned order of this Court has been containing perpetual/continuous Mandamus to the State Government to pay its pensioners dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners indefinitely, despite being inconsistent and in derogation to the provisions of law and prevailing Pension Rules, (vii) The order or direction of this Court based on such wrong concession of learned counsel/learned Advocate General continues to remain erroneous on point of law should be regarded otherwise also as a sufficient reason for review the impugned order, (viii) A wrong concession and/pr admission made by a counsel on behalf of a litigant can only bind the party on questions of fact and not on question of law which can be rectified subsequently by reviewing the judgment by this Court. 7. Sri Biswas, learned counsel for the 'writ petitioners Association' has endeavoured to controvert the assertions of learned Advocate General by saying that in the facts and circumstances in view of the contents of 'para 26' of order dated 22.04.97 passed in CR No. 259/95 and in view of the concession given by the Advocate General (as noted in para-2 of the impugned order dated 25.06.97 in WA No. 330/97) no element or point is available for this Court to cover under 'error apparent on the face of record' or 'for any sufficient reason'. As such no scope is available for interference in the impugned order. According to Mr. Biswas the only point for on behalf of the State of Tripura before this Court (DB) while perusing the writ appeal was the prayer for extension of the time to make good payment to the pensioners in the schedule time as indicated in paragraph 28 of the order of learned Single Judge. Therefore after fi-nalization of writ appeal no question arises now, to review the order dated 25.06.97 except to comply the same. 8. Before proceeding further, it may be necessary to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of CPC: "114. Review- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred. 8. Before proceeding further, it may be necessary to reproduce hereunder the relevant provisions of CPC: "114. Review- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of small causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit." ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1. Application for review of judgment- (1) Any person considering himself ag- grieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against I him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate court the case on which he applies for the review, 9. From the foregoing paragraph, it becomes apparent that the scope of review need not be confined to (i) discovery of a new and important piece of evidence and (ii) an error apparent on the face of record, but also to a situation necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other snfficient reason. 10. From the foregoing paragraph, it becomes apparent that the scope of review need not be confined to (i) discovery of a new and important piece of evidence and (ii) an error apparent on the face of record, but also to a situation necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other snfficient reason. 10. In support of his submissions, learned Advocate General for State/Appellant has referred following decisions. (i) AIR 2005 SC 592 (Board of Control for Cricket, India and Another Vs. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors.) (ii) (1999) 7 SCC 578 (Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Gokulprasad Maniklal Agarwal & Anr.) (iii) AIR 2005 Gauhati 124 (Krishna Mohan Jamatia Vs. State ofTripura & Ors.) (iv) AIR 2000 SC 540 (MM. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala & Anr.) (v) AIR 2000 SC 1650 (Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India &Ors.) (vi) AIR 2006 SC 75 (Rajendra Singh Vs. Lt. Governor Andaman & Nicober Islands & Ors.) 11. This Court is conscious about the settled law position and the scope of review e.g. in AIR 1980 SC 674 (M/s Northern India Caterers (India)Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi) the Supreme Court has held that the review is not for the purpose of re-hearing or for making a fresh decision. In (1997) 8 SCC 715 (Parsion Devi and Ors. Vs. Sumitri Devi and Ors.), Supreme Court has held that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an 'error apparent on the face of the record' justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. And a review is by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby, an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. The Supreme Court haS held in (1975) 3 SCR 933 (Chandra Kanta Vs. Sheikh Habib) that the review cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and it could be exercised only where a glaring omission or patent mistake has occurred in the order. 12. (i) The Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra) has observed that Order 47, Rule 1 CPC provides for filing an application for review. Sheikh Habib) that the review cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and it could be exercised only where a glaring omission or patent mistake has occurred in the order. 12. (i) The Supreme Court in Board of Control for Cricket (supra) has observed that Order 47, Rule 1 CPC provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. The Supreme Court further held that a mistake on the part of the Court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason. What would constitute sufficient reason in O. 47, R. 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a Court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "cactus curiae neminem gravabit." (ii) In Oriental insurance company (Supra) the Supreme Court has observed that review was to be allowed by the High Court instead of dismissing on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record, more so, when the judgment was passed by the High Court relying on erroneous submissions and explanation of the learned counsel for the parties about the relevant rules by saying that reduction to a lower timescale or to a lower stage in a timescale, was minor instead of major penalty, enabling the High Court to give decision that the promotion of the incumbent was not to be denied for merely imposition of minor penalty on him. (iii) In M.M. Thomas (Supra) the Supreme Court has held that if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it, the High Court has not only power but a duty to correct it. The relevant paragraph 14 is quoted as below:- "High Court as a Court of Record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. The relevant paragraph 14 is quoted as below:- "High Court as a Court of Record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. A Court of Record envelopes all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of Record is undoubtedly a superior Court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a Court of Record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court's power in that regards is plenary." (iv) In Rajendra Singh (Supra) where the Writ petitioner's claim for grant of senior grade and selection grade was declined by the High Court under 'UGC Career Ad-vancement Scheme' and his service as teacher was regularized from the date of initial appointment without deciding many important issues by ignoring material on record, the Supreme Court has observed that it was a clear case of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC on the ground of'error apparent on face of record' and non consideration of relevant documents, as such, and the rejection of review petition by the High Court was not proper. The relevant paragraph 16 is quoted as below: "The power in our opinion, extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Courts should not hesitate to review its own earlier order when there exists an error on the face of the record and the interest of the justice so demands in appropriate cases. The grievance of the appellant is that though several vital issues were raised and documents placed, the High Court has not considered the same in its review jurisdiction. In our opinion, the High Courts order in the revision petition is not correct which really necessitates our interference." (v) In Lily Thomas (Supra) the Supreme Court has observed that revie% means the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The Supreme Court has further observed that the words 'any other sufficient reason' appearing in Order 47, Rule 1, CPC must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule." As was held in Chhajju Ram V. Neki Ram (AIR 1922 PC 112) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Bassellos Catholics Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, ( AIR 1954 SC 526 ). Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. (Para 57). 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have noted that order dated 22.04.97 of Single Judge has been merged in the impugned order dated 25.06.97 of Division Bench of this High Court. While issuing mandamus by learned Single Judge the contentions of 'writ petitioners Association' presented in paragraph-13 of the writ petition (C.R. No. 259/95) was available, whereby, it was submitted that the 'Rule 55A' of CCS (Pension) Rules should be read as granting of rate of dearness relief to the pensioners on pension/family pension was subject to the conditions as the State Government may specify from time to time. Even in affidavit in opposition in reference to above averments, the State of Tripura had submitted that the State had already decided to pay dearness relief to its pensioners on availing of fund further indicating that the State has been releasing dearness relief at the rate at which the same is released by the Government of India from time to time, however, this Court all along was apprised of that due to the financial constraints the State could not cope up with the periodicity of release of such dearness relief by the Central Government to its pensioners. The admission of learned Advocate General regarding receiving of allocated fund to the State for pension by 10th Finance Commission was taken as satisfactory by this Court for directing the State Government to pay their outstanding dearness relief of 42% in two installments at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners not confined to the year 1995-96 only but as if mandamus of this court was persisting perpetually. It appears in view of the concession given by learned Advocate General, this Court directed the State Government to pay its pensioners dearness relief at the rate applicable to the Central Government pensioners indefinitely over and above the payment of 42% unpaid dearness relief till the date of 01.04.1995 in two installments. The mandamus to the State Government is giving reflections as if it is continuing/indefinitely. While 'Rule 5 5 A' if carries force of law by virtue of having been adopted by the State of Tripura then persistence of continuing mandamus of this Court without deliberation or adjudication of 'Rule 55A' in respect of empowerment of State of Tripuraro determine its rate of dearness relief for its pensioners for specifying the same from time to time merely on the concession given by learned Advocate General on law as well as on facts as noted in paragraph-2 of the order dated 25.06.97 in reference to the contents of paragraph 26 of order dated 22.04.97 of Single Judge is inviting our attention to invoke provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. - 14. - 14. The issuance of perpetual mandamus by this Court without dealing and considering the applicability of 'Rules 55A', in view of the concession of learned Advocate General given under misconception of law and facts based on improper instructions of State and its functionaries forming foundation of the impugned Judgment and Order, are relevant material and ground for consideration as 'error apparent on the face of the record,' so much so, relevant points to be covered under, any other sufficient reason to provide us a scope of giving indulgence to review the impugned order dated 25.06.97 under Chapter X of High Court Rules read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. 15. On analyzing of the facts and circumstances of the present case we find that there was concession on the part of learned Advocate General under misconception of law, more particularly in respect of 'Rule 55A' as well as on facts, necessitating us to invoke our jurisdiction to review the impugned order in question in the light of observations of Supreme Court made in i above referred cases more specifically in the case of Board of Control for Cricket (Supra) as well as in Rajendra Singh (Supra). 16. In view of the above observations, the above mentioned question under consideration before us is answered affirmatively. The Misc. application No. 12/06 praying for incorporating additional pleadings and grounds in preferring review Petition No. 12/04 is allowed. 17. The impugned order dated 25.06.1997 is set aside and the Review Petition No. 12/2004 is accordingly allowed. The writ appeal No. 330/97 shall be heard afresh on merits,