JUDGMENT T.N.K. Singh, J. 1. The Review Petitioners are asking for rehearing of Writ Petition (C) No. 626 of 2005 which had been disposed of by passing final judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 by filing Petition in the disguise of an application for review of the final judgment and order dated 21.3.2006. 2. Heard Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for the Review Petitioners and Shri Kh. Tarunkumar, learned Counsel for the Respondent/writ Petitioner. 3. The grounds mentioned in the Memo of present Review Petition for reviewing the final judgment and order of this Court dated 21.3.2006 would manifestly clear that the Petitioners are asking for re-hearing of the Writ Petition (C) No. 626 of 2005 by pointing out some reasons that the views of this Court in the final judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 are not correct. 4. From close perusal of the Memo of Review Petition, it is clear that the review Petitioners have also mentioned wrong facts in order to mislead this Court that: On this observation of the Hon'ble Court it is brought to the kind notice of the Hon'ble Court that this amount of Rs. 2000/- was basically fixed for the existing Volunteers (not Ex-VVF Volunteers) who as per the scheme upheld by this Hon'ble Court (Copy enclosed as Annexure-R/5 Wide order dated 8.9.2000 passed in Civil Rule No. 202/98 and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 2000 and in order dated 21.2.2003 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in special leave to appeal (Civil) No. 8074 of 2001 were part of the VVF Scheme in existence at that time. From the above facts it is the case of the review Petitioner that the Scheme dated 2.6.1999 (Annexure-R/5 in the Memo of Review Petition) had been upheld by this Court vide judgment and order dated 8.9.2000 passed in CR No. 202 of 1998 and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in WA No. 142 of 2000. Copies of the judgment and order of this Court dated 8.9.2000 passed in CR No. 202 of 1998 and judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in WA No. 142 of 2000 are available at Annexure-R/6 and 7 respectively in the Memo of present review petition. 5. Copies of the judgment and order of this Court dated 8.9.2000 passed in CR No. 202 of 1998 and judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in WA No. 142 of 2000 are available at Annexure-R/6 and 7 respectively in the Memo of present review petition. 5. This Court in the final judgment and order dated 8.9.2000 passed in CR No. 202 of 1998, in fact did not uphold the scheme dated 2.6.1999 (Annexure-R/5 to the present Memo of review petition). Para 13 of the final judgment and order of this Court dated 8.9.2000 passed in CR No. 202 of 1998 reads as follows: 13. On careful perusal of Office Memo dated 2nd June, 1999 I am of the opinion that the scheme contemplated under the said Memo would not meet the situation faced by the members of the Organization. May be the said scheme may meet the situation of persons who were recruited recently say in respect of persons recruited 4-5 years ago. I am also further of the opinion that since VVF is now under SSB, the members of the Organization very well be fitted into various ranks of SSB Organization. This Court (Division Bench) under the final judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No. 142 of 2000 dismissed the Writ Appeal with the observation that: We have carefully gone through the entire judgment. It remains acknowledged by the authority concerned that the members of the VVF Welfare Organization rendered dedicated service for the nation taking the risk of their lives. Without the assistance of the members of the Association, the military/para military forces had been/have been not in a position to combat the insurgency prevailed/prevailing in the North Eastern States, particularly in the State of Manipur. The learned Single Judge quoted several recommendations/descriptions given by SSB news bulletin in March/April, 1983, published in Vol. XVIII of the SSB NEWS in the impugned judgment. We also have been taken pain to go thought the same. Having paid anxious consideration upon the aforesaid authenticated news bulletin, published by the authority of SSB, the learned Single Judge arrived at a finding which appears to be reasonable and implementation of which is practicable. This being the position, we find no difficulty for the Union of India to comply with the said order. So far Clause Nos. Having paid anxious consideration upon the aforesaid authenticated news bulletin, published by the authority of SSB, the learned Single Judge arrived at a finding which appears to be reasonable and implementation of which is practicable. This being the position, we find no difficulty for the Union of India to comply with the said order. So far Clause Nos. 1, 3 and 4 of the direction given by the learned Single Judge are concerned, we find nothing to interfere. So far Clause No. 2 is concerned, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel submits that in order to comply the entire order passed by the learned Single Judge they need some time to complete the exercise and the payment as ordered by the learned Single Judge w.e.f. 1.7.2000 would be impracticable. Heard the learned Counsel for the Respondents on that point also. We are the opinion that the Central Government must regularize the services of the volunteers as mentioned in Clause (1) of the impugned judgment w.e.f that date of judgment viz. 8.9.2000 instead of 1.7.2000. The exercise as directed above, must be completed within three months. With this modification, the appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. The Apex Court under the judgment and order dated 21.2.2003 dismissed the SLP being SLP No. 8074 of 2001 against the judgment and order of this Court (Division Bench) dated 24.1.2001 in WA No. 142 of 2000. The judgment and order of the Apex Court dated 21.2.2003 passed in SLP No. 8074 of 2001 reads as follows: Having heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and learned senior counsel for the Respondents we are of the view that order under challenge does not warrant our interference. Hence, Special Leave petition is dismissed. From the judgment and order of this Court as well as the Apex Court, stated above, it is crystal clear that the scheme dated 2.6.1999 (Annexure-R/5 to the Memo of present Review Petition) had not been upheld by this Court and Apex Court in total. 7. There is no law that the senior officers of the Union of India and their counsel have the licence to speak wrong facts and their mistakes in submitting the fact would be excused only on the lame excuses that they are not properly briefed. Submission of wrong fact should not be excused lightly but should be penalized appropriately. 8. 7. There is no law that the senior officers of the Union of India and their counsel have the licence to speak wrong facts and their mistakes in submitting the fact would be excused only on the lame excuses that they are not properly briefed. Submission of wrong fact should not be excused lightly but should be penalized appropriately. 8. The Apex Court, through Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. L. Hansaria (as then he was) in Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, (1995) 1 SCC 421 observed that: Any one who takes recourse to fraud, deflects the course of judicial proceedings; or if anything is done with oblique motive, the same interferes with the administration of justice. Such persons are required to be properly dealt with, not only to punish them for the wrong done, but also to deter Ors. from indulging in similar acts which shake the faith of people in the system of administration of justice. To enable the Courts to ward off unjustified interference in their working, those who indulge in immoral acts like perjury, prevarication and motivated falsehoods have to be appropriately dealt with, without which it would not be possible for any Court to administer justice in the true sense and to the satisfaction of those who approach it in the hope that truth would ultimately prevail. 9. The Apex Court in Afzal and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors., AIR 1996 SC 2326 held that Police Officer who fabricated false evidence and files affidavit in opposition containing the incorrect facts had committed offence under Section 193 IPC. And, this Court in Surjit Das v. State of Assam and Ors., 2006 (2) GLT 324 imposed the cost of Rs. 5000/- against the incumbent of the office of the Chairman of Bongaigaon Development Authority (BDA) who was the Respondent No. 6 in WA No. 2488 of 2005 for filing counter affidavit containing wrong facts. This Court is of the considered view that there is no reason for excusing Shri R.D. Thongchi, S/O Late Frin Thongchi, at present serving as Inspector General of SSB, Frontier Headquarter, Zoo Road, Uday Path, Guwahati-24, Assam who sworn the affidavit in support of the wrong facts mentioned in the Memo of the present review petition. This Court is of the considered view that there is no reason for excusing Shri R.D. Thongchi, S/O Late Frin Thongchi, at present serving as Inspector General of SSB, Frontier Headquarter, Zoo Road, Uday Path, Guwahati-24, Assam who sworn the affidavit in support of the wrong facts mentioned in the Memo of the present review petition. For easy reference, the grounds for reviewing the final judgment and order of this Court dated 21.3.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 mentioned in the Memo of the present review petition are quoted hereunder: (i) For that, during 1965 to 1974 the VVF was under the control of the Chef Commissioner of the Government of Manipur. When the VVF was under the control of Manipur Government, no record of appointment and discharge were maintained by the State Government. Whatever records maintained in respect of the Volunteers were destroyed/weeded out by the State Government at the time of handing over the VVF to the SSB. (ii) For that, most of the members of the Petitioner Association joined the VVF during 1966 to 1974 when the VVF was under the control of the Chief Commissioner, Manipur and left the VVF before it was handed over to SSB in 1974. (iii) For that, the provision for payment of Terminal Gratuity for the VVF Volunteers were first introduced in the year 1984 vide Annexure-R/1 and most of the members of the Petitioners Association left the VVF before 1984 and as such they are not even eligible for terminal Gratuity. (iv) For that, as no document pertaining to the service conditions of the member of the Petitioner Association were available with the Review Petitioners, the Review Petitioners by a letter dated 19th May 2006 informed the Respondents/Writ Petitioner to furnish the detail particulars and accordingly the Petitioner Association submitted the details particulars of the Petitioner Association through review Petitioners official representative. (v) For that, from the list of the Volunteers collected from the Petitioner Association, it is ascertained that out of 5869 members of the Petitioner Association only 517 volunteers served beyond 1984. (vi) For that, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 21.3.2006 in Writ Petition No. 626/2005 titled All Manipur Ex-VVF Welfare Association v. UOI and Ors. (v) For that, from the list of the Volunteers collected from the Petitioner Association, it is ascertained that out of 5869 members of the Petitioner Association only 517 volunteers served beyond 1984. (vi) For that, the Hon'ble Court vide its order dated 21.3.2006 in Writ Petition No. 626/2005 titled All Manipur Ex-VVF Welfare Association v. UOI and Ors. had specifically in para-5 onwards of the judgment placed reliance on the affidavit in opposition filed by the Respondents on the fact that the Committee had recommended for grant of Terminal Gratuity @ Rs. 2000/- per completed years of service for each of the Petitioner's Association and accordingly disposed of the case directing the Respondents to pay monitory benefits to the present Writ Petitioners @ Rs. 2000/- per completed years of service for each VVF Volunteers. 10. In the Memo of the present review petition no new and important evidence or/documents which could not be produced by the review Petitioner at the time hearing of the WP(C) No. 626 of 2005, and as a result of non production of these documents, the final judgment and order of this Court dated 21.3.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 would suffer from error apparent on the face of record, are mentioned. 11. The Federal Court of India in Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai and Ors., AIR 1941 FC 1 held that the Federal Court will not seat as a Court of appeal from its own decision, nor will it entertain applications to review on the ground only that one of the parties in the case conceives himself to be aggrieved by the decision. The rules which govern the practice of the Judicial Committee and of the House of Lords in matters of review govern the practice of the Federal Court as well in India. Consequently no case in the Federal Court can be re-heard and an order once made is final and cannot be altered. The indulgence by way of review is granted mainly owing to the natural desire to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort as where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard. The indulgence by way of review is granted mainly owing to the natural desire to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a Court of last resort as where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard. But in no case however can a re-hearing be allowed upon the merits or even on the ground that new matter has been discovered, which, if it had been produced at the hearing of the appeal, might materially have affected the judgment of the Court." 12. In Writ Petition (C) No. 626 of 2005 filed by the "All Manipur VVF Ex-Service-men Welfare Association" having its registration No. 280/M/SR/91, through its President, the present review Petitioners had filed the affidavit in opposition stating the facts which are reiterated in the Memo of the present review petition. In support of the case of the review Petitioners, the Petitioners had already mentioned all the orders including order dated 12.3.1984 of the Deputy Secretary (SR) of the Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat and order dated 19.4.1984 of the Deputy Secretary (SR), Government of India, Cabinet Secretariat and also the judgment and order of this Court dated 8.9.2000 passed in CR No. 202 of 1998, judgment and order (Division Bench) dated 24.1.2001 passed in WA No. 142 of 2000 and judgment and order of the Apex Court dated 21.2.2003 passed in SLP No. 8074 of 2001 in the Affidavit in opposition filed by the Review Petitioners in the WP(C) No. 626 of 2005. Such being the situation, as discussed above, the Petitioners in the present review petition is only asking for re-hearing of the WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 which had already been disposed of bypassing the impugned final judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 so as to pressurize this Court to substitute the views of this Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 by new views in the manner desired by the review Petitioners in the present review petition. This Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 is not saying that the very Terminal Gratuity granted to those volunteers who failed to get absorbed in the SSB should also be granted to the members of the Petitioner/association of the WP(C) No. 202 of 1998. This Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 is not saying that the very Terminal Gratuity granted to those volunteers who failed to get absorbed in the SSB should also be granted to the members of the Petitioner/association of the WP(C) No. 202 of 1998. But this Court in the impugned judgment and order dated 21.3.2006 passed in WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 had simply taken into consideration of the amount of gratuity which would be given to the members of the VVF personnel who failed to get absorbed in the SSB as per the direction of this Court in C.R. No. 202 of 1998 while considering the amount of Terminal Gratuity to be given to the members of the Petitioner/association of WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 inasmuch as members of the Petitioner/association of WP(C) No. 626 of 2005 were also the members of the VVF who at present retired from VVF and the gratuity are also for the past services of the members of the Petitioner/association and similarly the gratuity for the members of the VVF who failed to absorbed in the SSB and in whose favour this Court passed judgment and order dated 8.9.2000 in CR No. 202 of 1998 and judgment and order dated 24.1.2000 in WA No. 142 of 2000 are also for the past service or/services rendered by them before releasing them from VVF. 13. The Apex Court in Sow Chandra Kanta and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 held that "a review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments is not a ground for review as would virtually amount to re-hearing." This ratio laid down in Sow Chandra Kanta and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib (supra) is reiterated in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 : (1980) 2 SCC 167 . Para 8 of the AIR in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (supra) reads as follows: 8. v. Sheikh Habib (supra) is reiterated in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 : (1980) 2 SCC 167 . Para 8 of the AIR in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (supra) reads as follows: 8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1965) 1 SCR 933 at p. 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will revise its judgment. G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCR 748 at p. 760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O.N. Mon/hindroo v. Dist. Judge, Delhi, (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p. 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility'. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933 . 14. The Apex Court in Lily Thomas and Ors. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933 . 14. The Apex Court in Lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 224 held that 'mere possibility of two views on the subject is not the ground for review'. Para 56 of the SCC in Lily Thomas and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) reads as follows: 56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but 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 like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practiced. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment. 15. In the case arising from the State of Manipur, the Apex Court in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma and Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 389 had discussed the limit of the exercise of the power of review of the High Court/Judicial Commissioner. In that case, the Hon'ble Judicial Commissioner of Manipur in exercising his power of review has reviewed the earlier judgment and order only on the ground that two important documents, which were available at the time of hearing of the Civil Appeal, were not taken into consideration at the time of passing the earlier judgment and order. In that case, the Hon'ble Judicial Commissioner of Manipur in exercising his power of review has reviewed the earlier judgment and order only on the ground that two important documents, which were available at the time of hearing of the Civil Appeal, were not taken into consideration at the time of passing the earlier judgment and order. The Apex Court had not only set aside the judgment of the learned Judicial Commissioner, Manipur reviewing the earlier judgment and order but also held that the Judicial Commissioner may not exercise its power of review on the ground that decision was erroneous on merit and also that the power of review is not to be confused with the appellate powers which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Courts." The Apex Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1980 SC 2041 held that mere wrong decision is not the ground for filing review petition and review petition is to be entertained only when there is material error manifest on the face of the record of the earlier order resulting in miscarriage of justice. 16. In the Union of India v. Paul Manickam and Anr., (2003) 8 SCC 342 , the detention order had been challenged by filing a writ petition. The High Court rejected the writ petition upholding the detention order. After the dismissal of the earlier writ petition, the detenu again challenged the detention order by filing review petition on the ground mat representations filed by the detenu to the President of India or the Governor had not been disposed of. In that case the Hon'ble High Court, considering that there are sufficient grounds for reviewing the earlier order for rejecting the writ petition, had allowed the review petition and thereby setting aside the detention order. In that case the Hon'ble High Court, considering that there are sufficient grounds for reviewing the earlier order for rejecting the writ petition, had allowed the review petition and thereby setting aside the detention order. In the appeal against the said judgment and order of the High Court reviewing the earlier orders, the Apex Court held that the said grounds which had been taken by the High Court for reviewing the earlier judgment are not the sufficient grounds inasmuch as it was a dubious device to create a confusion as the Petitioner for the first time in the review petition discloses that representations had been made to the President of India and no representation was made to the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union of India who were arrayed in the writ petition as parties. The Apex Court also, further, held that it appears to be a deliberate attempt to create confusion and reap an undeserved benefit by adopting such dubious device. The High Court also transgressed its jurisdiction in entertaining the review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues. Para 19 of Union of India v. Paul Manickam and Anr. (supra) reads as follows: 19. As noted supra, for the first time in the review application it was disclosed that the Pre-presentation was made to the President of India and no representation was made to the State of Tamil Nadu or the Union of India who were arrayed in the writ petition as parties. This appears to be a deliberate attempt to create confusion and reap an undeserved benefit by adopting such dubious device. The High Court also transgressed its jurisdiction in entertaining the review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues. Considering the limited scope for review, the High Court ought not to have taken into account factual aspects which were not disclosed or were concealed in the writ petition. While dealing with a habeas corpus application undue importance is not to be attached to technicalities, but at the same time where the Court is satisfied that an attempt has been made to deflect the course of justice by letting lose red herrings the Court has to take serious note of unclean approach. While dealing with a habeas corpus application undue importance is not to be attached to technicalities, but at the same time where the Court is satisfied that an attempt has been made to deflect the course of justice by letting lose red herrings the Court has to take serious note of unclean approach. Whenever a representation is made to the President and the Governor instead of the indicated authorities, it is but natural that the representation should indicate as to why the representation was made to the President or the Governor and not the indicated authorities. It should also be clearly indicated as to whom the representation has been made specifically, and not in the manner done in the case at hand. The President as well as the Governor, no doubt are constitutional Heads of the respective Governments but the day-to-day administration at respective levels is carried on by the Heads of the Departments/ Ministries concerned and the designated officers who alone are ultimately responsible and accountable for the action taken or to be taken in a given case. If really the citizen concerned genuinely and honestly felt or was interested in getting an expeditious consideration or disposal of his grievance, he would and should honestly approach the real authorities concerned and would not adopt any dubious devices with the sole aim of deliberately creating a situation for delay in consideration and cry for relief on his own manipulated ground, by directing his representation to an authority which is not directly immediately concerned with such consideration. 17. To the contra, learned Counsel for the review Petitioners had referred to the judgment and order of this Court (incidentally by this very Bench, i.e. Mr. Justice T. NK Singh) in the State of Manipur and Ors. v. Manipur Hills & Plain Contractors Assn. and Anr., AIR 2006 Gau 73 and also Anr. judgment and order in State of Tripura v. Tripura Government Pensioners Association, 2006 (2) GLT 688 in support of the case of the review Petitioners. This Court is not wasting the valuable time by discussing the fact basing on which review petitions had been filed in State of Manipur and Ors. v. Manipur Hills & Plain Contractors Assn. and Anr. (supra) & Slate of Tripura v. Tripura Government Pensioners Association (supra). This Court is not wasting the valuable time by discussing the fact basing on which review petitions had been filed in State of Manipur and Ors. v. Manipur Hills & Plain Contractors Assn. and Anr. (supra) & Slate of Tripura v. Tripura Government Pensioners Association (supra). To be precise, the fact and circumstances under which the review petitions had been filed in the State of Manipur and Ors. v. Manipur Hills & Plain Contractors Assn. and Anr. (supra) & State of Tripura v. Tripura government Pensioners Association (supra) are diametrically different from the facts and grounds for review in the present case. And as such, these cases will not rescue the Petitioners of the present review petition from dismissing the Review Petition for the reasons discussed above. Review Petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed