Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. 2. This review petition has been filed against the order of this Court, dated 11. 2008, made in W.P.No.1625 of 2003. 3. It has been stated that the District Collector, Dindigul District, the respondent herein, had imposed a penalty of suspension of licence for 15 days on the petitioner and that he had also passed an order refusing the postponement of the punishment. Even though important points had to be argued before this Court, it could not be done due to the noncooperation of the petitioner on the hearing date. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner had argued only on the point of postponement of the punishment and that the issue of quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner could not be contested. Thus, the legality of the order and the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner was not taken into consideration by this Court while passing the order, dated 11. 2008, in W.P.No.1625 of 2003. In such circumstances, this Court had directed the respondent to implement the suspension of the licence, in accordance with the order of the respondent, dated 1. 2003, for a period of 14 days, starting from 111. 2008. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent had submitted that there is no scope of review in the present petition since the order of this Court, dated 11. 2008, made in W.P.No.1625 of 2003, is an order passed by the consent of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court had no occasion to consider the legality or the quantum of punishment imposed on the petitioner by the respondent. 5. Even on the merits of the case, the petitioners claim could not have been entertained by this Court since the petitioner had accepted the commission of the offence of evasion of tax and remitted the compounding fee of Rs.1500/-. Invoking the power vested with the licensing authority, under Section 9 of the Tamilnadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955, the respondent had suspended the `C Form Licence of the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957, and the conditions prescribed in the `C Form Licence. 6. Invoking the power vested with the licensing authority, under Section 9 of the Tamilnadu Cinema (Regulation) Act, 1955, the respondent had suspended the `C Form Licence of the petitioner for the violation of the provisions of the Tamilnadu Cinema (Regulation) Rules, 1957, and the conditions prescribed in the `C Form Licence. 6. Since the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the respondent is directed to implement the impugned order, dated 1. 2003, suspending the licence of the petitioner, from 111. 2008, this Court had passed the said order, on 11. 2008. Since the ingredients necessary for reviewing its earlier order, dated 11. 2008, have not been made out, the review petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. 7. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondent and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to entertain the review petition filed by the petitioner to review the order of this Court, dated 11. 2008, made in W.P.No.1625 of 2003. 8. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, the ingredients necessary for this Court to entertain a review petition do not exist in the present case, as held by the Supreme Court in Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi - (1997) 8 SCC 715 . W.P.No.136 of 2008. Similarly, citing some of its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court, in HARIDAS DAS Vs. USHA RANI BANIK ( AIR 2006 SC 1634 ) had held that on a perusal of Order XLVII, Rule 1, it could be seen that a review of a judgment or an order could be sought: (a) upon the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of the due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner; (b) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the petitioner at the time when the decree or order had been passed and (c) on account of mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reasons. However, it was made clear that it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous, on merits and that the power of review is not to be confused with the appeal power, which enables the appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by a subordinate Court. 9. In Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., ( (2005) 6 SCC 651 ), the Supreme Court had held that the appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. 10. In view of the above decisions, it is clear that the review petitioner ought to show that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or that new and important matters could not be considered, in spite of due diligence on the part of the parties concerned, for this Court to entertain a review petition. Since the petitioner has not been in a position to show that such requirements have been fulfilled, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Further, the order passed by this court, on 11. 2008, in W.P.No.1625 of 2003, is an order passed, based on the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In such circumstances, this Court is not persuaded to entertain the above review petition. Hence, the review petition stands dismissed. No costs.