JUDGMENT :- M.M. Sundresh, J. 1. Three writ petitions have been filed in W.P.(MD) Nos.10417, 11648 and 11684 of 2010. These three writ petitions have been disposed of by the Honourable Division Bench in and by its order dated 18.10.2010. 2. W.P.(MD) No.10417 of 2010 has been filed by an association seeking a direction, forbearing the respondent Madurai Corporation from in any way closing the slaughter house situated at Quaid-Millath Nagar, Nelpettai, Madurai - 1 with consequent direction to direct the respondent Corporation to retain the said slaughter house in the existing place. 3. W.P.(MD) No.11684 of 2010 was filed by another association seeking a direction, directing the respondent Corporation permitting its members to proceed with the slaughtering at Quaid-Millath Nagar, Ward No.48 of Madurai. 4. As against these two writ petitions filed on behalf of the members, who are the owners of mutton stalls, a writ petition was filed in W.P.(MD) No.11648 of 2010 by an individual seeking a direction forbearing the respondent Corporation from allowing the illegal slaughtering of cattle in Quaid-Millath Nagar 1st Street, Attumanthaipottal, Ward No.48 at Madurai Corporation. 5. All the three writ petitions have been heard together and a common order has been passed by this Court allowing W.P.(MD) No.11648 of 2010 and dismissing W.P.(MD) Nos.10417 and 11684 of 2010. The petitioner herein, who is the writ petitioner in W.P. (MD)No.11684 of 2010 has filed this review application seeking to review the order passed in the said writ petition by changing the counsel, who appeared earlier at the time of passing the final order. 6. A slaughter house was established by the respondent Corporation, originally at Ward No.48, Quaide-Millath Nagar, Nelpettai, Madurai. A decision was made to establish a new slaughter house with all modern facilities with a permission to do Halal by closing the existing one by taking note of the fact that the original slaughter house is situated in the midst of residential area, having no modern facilities resulting in health hazards and likely to cause pollution to the water source, considering the fact that Vaikai River is situated very near. 7. The Honourable Division of this Court heard the counsels appearing for the parties and by a detailed order dismissed the writ petitions filed in W.P.(MD) No.10417 and 11684 of 2010. 7. The Honourable Division of this Court heard the counsels appearing for the parties and by a detailed order dismissed the writ petitions filed in W.P.(MD) No.10417 and 11684 of 2010. While dismissing the said writ petitions, it has been held that it is the prerogative of the respondent Corporation to have the slaughter house in a particular place and taking into consideration of the relevant materials, the new modern slaughter house has been established by the respondent Corporation with all the facilities and permission has been given to slaughter animals by following Halal Methods. This court also taken into consideration of the fact that for the new slaughter house, the permission of the Government of Tamil Nadu has been obtained and the relevant factors for changing the slaughter house to a new place have been taken into consideration duly.The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.10417 of 2010 relying upon Section 371 of Madurai City Corporation Act, 1972 was also considered and rejected. 8. This review application has been filed by the petitioner in W.P.(MD) No.11684 of 2010 on the ground that the provisions contained in Sections 437, 471 and 433 of the Madurai City Corporation Act, 1972 have not been considered by passing a bylaw for closing the earlier one and for establishing a new one. It is further stated in the review petition that this Court has wrongly relied upon the note put up by the respondent Corporation misconstruing the same as a resolution and the members of the petitioner association as well as the public were affected by the establishment of the new slaughter house. Therefore, the order passed by this Court dated 18.10.2010 is liable to be reviewed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in Tahir Hussain v. Board, Muzaffarnagar reported in A.I.R. 1954 S.C. 630 in support of his contention. 9. We are not inclined to admit the review petition filed, as what is sought to be contended before the Court is not to review the order passed by this Court dated 18.10.2010, but a rehearing. 9. We are not inclined to admit the review petition filed, as what is sought to be contended before the Court is not to review the order passed by this Court dated 18.10.2010, but a rehearing. The power of review can be exercised only in a case, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record, in other words an error which has to be found out by indulging in such an exercise, not being an error apparent on the face of the record, even assuming it is available, cannot be a ground for review. Such an error would not warrant any further investigation or enquiry which has to be seen by a mere look at the order passed. An adjudication on the merits to find out the error can never be a ground for reviewing the order passed earlier. 10. Considering the scope of review, the Honourable Apex Court in S.Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 Supreme Court Cases 464 has held as follows: "12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more that a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyse the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above." 11. With this background, let us analyse the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above." 11. Therefore, applying the ratio laid down by the Honourable Apex Court to the facts of this case and on considering the arguments of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, We do not find any ground to review the order passed by this Honourable Court, which is a detailed and reasoned order. 12. It is seen from the records filed by the petitioner in the writ petition, a resolution was passed by the respondent Corporation to the effect that it has been decided to shift the earlier place to the newly established place. It is further seen from the records filed by the petitioner herein in the writ petition filed by it earlier, that it was aware of the fact that a decision has been taken by the respondent Corporation to shift the earlier slaughter house. This Court has taken into consideration the relevant facts and rightly took the view that the decision to have the new and modern slaughter house in some other place does not warrant any interference. This Court also took into consideration of the fact that resolution was passed to construct a Hospital in the earlier place. The facts, such as pollution caused to the water body, health hazard and the necessity to have the new modern slaughter house by shifting the existing one have been taken into consideration. 13. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that there was no resolution. This Court has recorded the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent Corporation to the effect that the resolution has been passed to construct a hospital in the original slaughter house. The decision has been made by the respondent by taking into consideration of the note put up by the Commissioner. The said decision has been approved by the Honourable Division Bench of this Court by satisfying with the reasons assigned therein. 14. The petitioner herein cannot raise a new plea for the first time before this Court by way of a review application. We have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in earlier writ petition, which clearly exemplify the fact that the grounds raised now have not been raised earlier and the counsel appeared has also not raised any such plea. The petitioner herein cannot raise a new plea for the first time before this Court by way of a review application. We have perused the affidavit filed by the petitioner in earlier writ petition, which clearly exemplify the fact that the grounds raised now have not been raised earlier and the counsel appeared has also not raised any such plea. Further, a common order has been passed by this Court in all the three writ petitions and the said order has become final insofar as the other two writ petitions are concerned. 15. Therefore, in the light of the discussions made above and on a consideration of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court referred to above, We do not find any ground to entertain the review application. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.Ps. are dismissed.