Judgment : M. Jaichandren, J. 1. Heard Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, the learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. 2. Since common issues have arisen for the consideration of this court in the present Review Applications, a common order is being passed. 3. The above Review Applications have been filed against the common order passed by this court, in W.A.Nos.179, 180, 181, 182 and 183 of 2014 and W.A.Nos.284, 285, 286, 287 and 288 of 2014 and W.P.Nos.9225 and 9226 of 2014, dated 30.4.2014. 4. The learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants had stated that the learned single Judge, in his order, dated 20.1.2014, had granted the relief to the students belonging to academic years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 of the DD Medical College, after calling for the relevant records and after perusing the voluminous records placed before the court. However, the order, dated 30.4.2014, had been passed by the Division Bench of this court without perusing the said records. From the records produced before the learned single Judge it had been found that there was an unholy nexus between The Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R Medical University and the Government of Tamil Nadu, in helping the DD Medical College in cheating the poor students of the said college. In such circumstances, the Essentiality Certificate issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu would also cover the students of 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 batches. However, the Division Bench of this court had reversed the well considered decision rendered by the learned single Judge stating that no materials were available before the learned single Judge to persuade him to arrive at such a conclusion. The Division Bench of this court had also found that the observations made by the learned single Judge, casting certain aspersions against the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and the State Government, cannot be sustained. The said findings rendered by the Division Bench are not based on the available facts on record and therefore, there has been an error apparent on the face of the record for this court to review its order dated 30.4.2014. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the learned single Judge had granted the relief, in favour of the students, based on equity, due to the special circumstances which had arisen in the cases on hand. Therefore, the Division Bench had erred in reversing the decision rendered by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014. 6. 5. The learned counsel had further submitted that the learned single Judge had granted the relief, in favour of the students, based on equity, due to the special circumstances which had arisen in the cases on hand. Therefore, the Division Bench had erred in reversing the decision rendered by the learned single Judge, dated 20.1.2014. 6. The learned counsel had further submitted that the Division Bench had erred in holding that nothing had been placed before this court to show that the Medical Council of India has a legal obligation to make an announcement, publicly, in order to prevent the students and their parents from approaching the colleges, which have not obtained the necessary permission to admit the students. Such a finding is an error apparent on the face of the record. 7. The learned counsel had further submitted that Special Leave Petitions filed against the order passed by this Court had been dismissed, in limine, without leave having been granted. Further, no reasons had been given by the Supreme Court, while dismissing the Special Leave Petitions. In such circumstances, the present Review Applications are maintainable before this court for the reasons stated therein. Therefore, this court, may be pleased to review its order, dated 30.4.2014, and to grant the reliefs prayed for by the applicants. 8. The learned counsel had relied on the following decisions in support of her contentions. Kunhayammed and others Vs. State of Kerala and another, (2000) 6 SCC 359 Bakshi Devi Raj (2) and another Vs. Sudheer Kumar, (2011) 8 SCC 679 . 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants and on perusing the records available and on considering the decisions cited supra, we are of the considered view that the present Review Applications are not maintainable. Nothing has been shown by the applicants to substantiate their claims that there are errors apparent on the face of the record in the order passed by this court, on 30.4.2014. 10. It is found that this court had rightly held that there were no materials available before the learned single Judge to persuade him to arrive at his conclusion that there was an unholy nexus between the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and the DD Medical College. Further, such materials had also not been placed before this court. 10. It is found that this court had rightly held that there were no materials available before the learned single Judge to persuade him to arrive at his conclusion that there was an unholy nexus between the Dr.M.G.R. Medical University and the DD Medical College. Further, such materials had also not been placed before this court. Further, the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants that the learned single Judge had granted relief to the students in question, based on equity, is not acceptable, especially, when serious irregularities had been committed by the college in admitting the students without obtaining the necessary permission from the Medical Council of India, contrary to the undertaking given before this court on an earlier occasion. 11. From the records available before this court we find that the Supreme Court had passed an order in the Special Leave Petitions, dated 2.6.2014, which reads as follows: ORDER Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, we find no good ground to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Despite the fact that we have chosen not to interfere with the impugned order, we consider it just and appropriate to expressly grant liberty to the students admitted to the academic courses, i.e. for the years 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 to seek compensation for the wrongful admission granted by the Respondent Medical College, as also to initiate criminal proceedings against the Respondent Medical College. With the aforesaid observations the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed. 12. Further, it is a settled position in law that the review jurisdiction of this Court is limited in nature, as held by the Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain V. Motilal Jain (2009 AIR SCW 5364). In Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury ( AIR 1995 SC 455 ), the Supreme Court, citing its decision in Aribam Tuleshwar sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 , had observed, with regard to the review powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as follows: 8. In Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury ( AIR 1995 SC 455 ), the Supreme Court, citing its decision in Aribam Tuleshwar sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 , had observed, with regard to the review powers, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as follows: 8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Artilce 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court. 13. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 , the Supreme Court had held as follows: “It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the Power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person 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 merits. 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 the Subordinate Court.” 14. In State of W.B. Vs. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 , the Supreme Court had held as follows: “To put it differently, an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 , the Supreme Court had held as follows: “To put it differently, an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. While exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.” 15. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to reject the contentions raised on behalf of the applicants, as they are devoid of merits and unsustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, we find it appropriate to dismiss the Review Applications holding that the applicants have not made out a case, for this court to review its order, dated 30.4.2014. As such, the review applications are liable to be dismissed. Hence, they are dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.