Judgment :- T.S. Sivagnanam, J. 1. Heard Mr. N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, and perused the review petition filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 05.04.2011 passed in W.P.No.7897 of 2011. 2. For better appreciation the order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, which is sought to be reviewed, is quoted herein below:- “Heard the learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 21.03.2011 passed by the third respondent - Inspector of Police, J-1 Saidapet Police Station, Law and Order Wing and to further direct the respondents to permit the petitioner to conduct a Public Meeting on 25.03.2011 or on any other subsequent dates. 2. It appears that the petitioner had sought for permission from the third respondent for holding a meeting to boycott the General Election to the Tamil Nadu State Legislative Assembly. The said permission was rejected by the third respondent. Hence, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition. 3. The prayer made by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to hold a meeting for the purpose of boycotting the General Election is wholly misconceived and against the democratic set up of the country. 4. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.” 3. Mr.N.G.R.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order needs to be reviewed on the ground that the Freedom of Speech and Expression cannot be curtailed except by the limitations provided in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, and the reason assigned by the 3rd respondent is not within the purview of that Article. According to the learned counsel where a right to campaign for voting in favour of a person is available, at the same juncture, a right to call for boycott with reference to an election is also available as a self consisting right. The learned counsel also drawn our attention to an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4943 of 2010 dated 22.03.2010. 4. The learned counsel also drawn our attention to an order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4943 of 2010 dated 22.03.2010. 4. At the very outset, we are of the definite opinion that the ground set forth by the petitioner cannot be a ground to review the order passed by this Court. Learned counsel has failed to point out the defect or an apparent error on the face of the record. So far as the order passed in W.P.No.4943 of 2010 is concerned, the same was in a different subject, and with due respect, we are unable to agree with the observation made by the learned single Judge in that order to the effect that the Right to Speech and Expression can be exercised in any manner. Even assuming that the right to boycott an election is available to a citizen, Court cannot issue a mandamus directing a citizen to hold a meeting for boycotting election. Hence, we do not find any reason to review our earlier order dated 05.04.2011 passed in W.P.No.7897 of 2011. This Review Application is dismissed accordingly. No costs.