Judgment This is an Application styled as an Application to recall order dated 04.03.2014. By the order dated 03.09.2012, in this public interest litigation, judgment is rendered, by which the Court directed to remove the structures, which were put up on what was in the record shown as a village pond. In the alternative, a direction was given permitting the applicant to put up another pond without producing inundation of the adjoining land. Alternatively, it was ordered that the applicant may provide a village pond having same area in the vicinity and to ensure that no inundation takes place in the area in question within time, inter alia. After the writ petition was disposed of, a letter was written by the writ petitioner stating that no part of the order was implemented and further constructions have been made. We notice order dated 28.10.2013, wherein the Court has noted the complaint of the petitioner that the pond, which has been proposed for the village, is situated not in the vicinity but at a great distance and, also, it is situated about 50 feet above the level of the earlier village pond and is situated in the opposite direction and the said village pond will not be in a position to help the villagers to avoid inundation during the flood period. An Advocate was appointed to give an unbiased report after conducting inspection. Thereafter, which we notice, amongst the orders, which came to be passed and which is the subject matter of this Recall Application is order dated 04.03.2014, which reads as follows:- “Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Amicus Curiae with Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondents. From the report submitted by the Special Officer, to which no exception has been taken by the respondents, it is crystal clear that there is no scope of providing a village pond having same area in the vicinity and to ensure that no inundation takes place in the area in question. That being the situation, the order of this Court dated 3rd September, 2012 is reviewed, inasmuch as, a wrong impression was given at that stage that such a possibility is available. That being the situation, the order of this Court dated 3rd September, 2012 is reviewed, inasmuch as, a wrong impression was given at that stage that such a possibility is available. Accordingly, the State Government is directed to restore the village pond by removing all structures constructed on the village pond within a period of three months from today and report compliance.” 2. It is this order, which is sought to be recalled. 3. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel, who has been appointed as Amicus Curiae and also the learned Government Pleader. 4. The order, which is sought to be recalled, is an order by which apparently the Court had suo moto reviewed the earlier order on the basis that at the time when the alternative was thought of, the Court was led by a wrong impression at that stage about the possibility of the alternative choice, which is expressed in the order. This Recall Application is filed under no particular provision. Then, we made enquiries and it is submitted that it is invoking the inherent power. The order, which is sought to be recalled, is an order passed in a suo moto review. Even proceeding on the basis that this Recall Application can be entertained on grounds analogous to the grounds available for review, no such ground is argued or established before us. In such situation, we feel that the Application itself is not maintainable and is dismissed as such. 5. List the matter on 15.10.2014 for instructions as to the compliance of the order dated 04.03.2014.