JUDGMENT (Per G.S. Singhvi, C.J.) Feeling dissatisfied with order dated 28-3-2006 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal NO.937 of 2005, the petitioner M/s. Hemarajani Tubes Pvt. Ltd., has filed WAMP NO.1323 of 2006 for review of that order. It has also filed application for staying of all further proceedings in Case No. 38/1/128 pending before the Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council (Non-petitioner No.2) 2. Sri T. Jagan Mohan Reddy argued that while allowing Writ Petition NO.21693 of 2004 filed by the Central Store Purchase Organisation on the ground that order dated 17-7-2004 passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Andhra Pradesh Industry Facilitation Council is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural justice, the learned Single Judge misinterpreted notice dated 7 -5-2004 issued by the Commissionerate of Industries, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and the same mistake has been repeated by the Division Bench. Learned Counsel emphasized that non-petitioner No.2 had already passed order dated 17-5-2004 for ex parte proceedings and, therefore, notice dated 14-7 -2004 ought not to have been treated as a notice for giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner (respondent NO.1 herein). Sri Gopal Hemarajani - representative of the petitioner, who too was given opportunity to make submissions lamented that he has become victim of the apathy of the advocate of whom he had engaged for arguing the case before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the court may recall order dated 28-3-2006 and dismiss the writ petition filed by respondent No.1. 3. We have thoughtfully considered the submission of Sri T. Jagan Mohan Reddy and the representative of the petitioner, but have not felt persuaded to agree with them that order dated 28-3-2006 suffers from an error apparent warranting its review. A careful reading of that order shows that the Division Bench had minutely dealt with all the arguments put forward by Sri Gopal Hemarajani representative of the appellant (petitioner herein), but did not find any merit in any of the arguments. If the petitioner felt aggrieved by the order of the Division Bench, then the appropriate remedy available to it was to appeal against the same and not to apply for review. It is not even the case of the petitioner that while deciding the writ appeal, the Division Bench over-looked any fact or did not deal with the points argued at the time of hearing. It is not even the case of the petitioner that while deciding the writ appeal, the Division Bench over-looked any fact or did not deal with the points argued at the time of hearing. What it seeks is a re-hearing of the writ appeal, which is clearly beyond the scope of the High Courts power of review. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. T. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma. 4. For the reasons stated above, the review petition is dismissed. 5. As a sequel to dismissal of the review petition, WPMP No. 1324 of 2006 filed for stay of the proceedings of Case No.38/1/3128 pending before non-petitioner No.2 is also dismissed.