JUDGMENT 1. IN re: CAN 4947 of 2011 With the consent of the parties, this application is treated as on day's list and the same is taken up as on days list. 2. THIS is an application for condonation of delay for taking up the review application No. 21 of 2011. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties as also considering the statements made in this application, this application is allowed and disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. In re: RVW21 of 2011 3. THIS an application for review of the final order dated May 14, 2011 passed in the Writ application bearing No. 12120 (W) of 2009. The operative portion of the above order is quoted below: "Having heard the learned counsel as also considering the materials on record, I find that in view of the order dated November 27, 2008 passed in W.P. No. 21762 (W) of 2007, the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding automatically came to an end after expiry of a period of three months from the date of communication of the above order. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground for keeping the petitioner under suspension by virtue of the impugned order of suspension. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension dated February 22, 2007 is quashed and set aside. THIS writ application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs." 4. IT is submitted on behalf of the applicants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 that due to non-cooperation and/or inaction on the part of the learned Advocate engaged by them in the above writ application, the case of the respondents could not be placed before this Court at the time of disposal of the above writ application. IT is further submitted that an application for extension of the period to conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was filed in writ application bearing No. WP 21762 (W) of 2007. But due to non-operation of the learned Advocate for the applicant, the same could not be dispose of. IT is also submitted on behalf of the applicants that due to the retirement of the enquiry officer from his government service, the enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner could not be completed within the time fixed in WP 21762 (W) of 2007. This application is vividly opposed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. 5. IT is also submitted on behalf of the applicants that due to the retirement of the enquiry officer from his government service, the enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner could not be completed within the time fixed in WP 21762 (W) of 2007. This application is vividly opposed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner. 5. ACCORDINGLY, to him, admittedly the order dated November 27, 2008 passed in WP 21762 (W) of 2007 had reached its finality. The time limit fixed for completing the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner by virtue of the above order expired. In view of the above admitted ground, there is no ground to review the order dated May 14, 2010 passed in WP 12120 (W) of 2009. 6. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of this case. Admittedly, the writ application bearing WP 12120 (W) of 2009 was disposed of by this Court by an order dated May 14, 2010. By virtue of the above order, this Court came to the conclusion that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the writ petitioner had come to an end after expiry of the period of three months from the date of communication of this order dated November 27, 2008 passed in WP 21762 (W) of 2007. Needless to point out that liberty was given to the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by virtue of the aforesaid order to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the writ petitioner and to conclude the same within three months, failing which, the disciplinary proceeding would automatically come to an end. Admittedly, no appeal was preferred against the above order by the applicants. It is also not in dispute that the period prescribed in the above order was not extended at any point of time. Therefore, assuming that there was laches on the part of the learned Advocate entrusted with this case by the applicants, there was no scope to improve the cases of the applicants on May 14, 2010 even in cases of making the submissions as recorded hereinabove. The law with regard to the review a final order passed in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has already been settled in the matter of A.T. Sharma and Ors. The law with regard to the review a final order passed in an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has already been settled in the matter of A.T. Sharma and Ors. v. A.P. Sharma reported in AIR 1979 page 1027 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below: "3...........The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, 'settlement' made in favour of the different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the persons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivbeodeo Singh v. State of Punjab ( AIR 1963 SC 1909 ). There is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court to plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to be exercised of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after of exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the persons seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made: it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by subordinate Court." 7. TAKING into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the applicants in the light of the aforesaid settled principles of law, I find that no relief can be granted to the applicants/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this application. 8. THIS applicant is therefore dismissed. The application bearing CAN 1924 of 2011 also stands dismissed accordingly. 9. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent photo state copy of this order be given to the parties on usual undertaking. 1 and 2 in this application. 8. THIS applicant is therefore dismissed. The application bearing CAN 1924 of 2011 also stands dismissed accordingly. 9. THERE will be no order as to costs. Urgent photo state copy of this order be given to the parties on usual undertaking. In re: WPCRC 327 (W) of 2010 Let this matter appear in the daily supplementary cause list on August 12, 2011 under the heading Contempt Hearing on top. Affidavits, if any, be filed in the meantime. Application dismissed.