JUDGMENT : B.K. Sharma, J. 1. This review petition filed by the State of Assam in the Sports and Youth Welfare Department is in respect of the judgment and order dated 10.9.2009 passed in WP (C) No. 3273/2006. For a ready reference, the operative part of the judgment under review is quoted below: "From the materials made available before this court, I am prima facie satisfied that there were assessments and site verification made on several occasions by the respondent authorities and they have assessed the works value at Rs. 1,30,62,200/-. It is very surprising that the concerned respondent-PWD, is not bothered for filing any counter affidavit in this matter, either disputing or agreeing to the claim made by the petitioner. In absence of such affidavit, the court may accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner company, particularly, in regard to the assessments made by the respondent authorities. In view of above, it is directed that the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 4, the Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Assam shall make necessary arrangement for payment of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,30,62,200/- as assessed by the authorities of the Public Works Department which is found in communication No. B/MISC/263/3380 dated 17.7.2002 written by the Executive Engineer, PWD Guwahati Building Division, Guahati, Assam, if necessary after re-verification. Considering the financial loss suffered by the petitioner company, it is directed that the whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. With the foresaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of." 2. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order, the Chief Engineer, PWD (Building), Government of Assam, which was party respondent to the writ petition, preferred an appeal being W.A. No. 100/2011. The writ appeal was disposed of by order dated 6.4.2011 declining to interfere with the impugned judgment and order. For a ready reference, the operative part of the appellate order is quoted below: "The grievance of the appellant is that it has no concern with the construction or contract entered into between M/s. Archtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Sports Trust. It is under these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed. For a ready reference, the operative part of the appellate order is quoted below: "The grievance of the appellant is that it has no concern with the construction or contract entered into between M/s. Archtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the Rajiv Gandhi Memorial Sports Trust. It is under these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed. Learned counsel for M/s. Archtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. has handed over in Court a letter dated 18.1.2010 issued by Sanjib Gohain Boruah, Director, Sports & Youth Welfare, Assam to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Sports & Youth Welfare Department in which it is stated that a request has already been made to the Guwahati Development Department of the Government of Assam for providing an amount of Rs. 130.622 lakhs for making payment to M/s. Archtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. vide Government letter No. SYW-168/2009/20 dated 5.12.2009. From the above letter, it is quite clear that no liability has been cast on the appellant for making payments and in fact even according to the State of Assam the payment has to be made to M/s. Archtech Consultants Pvt. Ltd. by the Guwahati Development Department of the Government of Assam. The letter is kept on record. In view of the above, there is no reason for the appellant to be aggrieved by the order impugned in this appeal. Accordingly, keeping in mind the contents of the letter dated 18.1.2010, this writ appeal is disposed of." 3. Be it stated here that in the said appeal proceeding i.e. W.A. No. 100/2011, the Government of Assam in the Sports & Youth Welfare Department was very much party respondent. After such disposal of the writ appeal, the Government of Assam in the Sports & Youth Welfare Department preferred another appeal being W.A. No. 118/2012 and the same was dismissed by order dated 4.5.2012, which is quoted below: "This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge directing payment of admitted amount. In this appeal the ground taken is that the State could not point out that the amount already paid is in excess of the amount due. If that be so, the appellants have the alternative remedy to move the learned Single Judge. Subject to the said remedy, the appeal is dismissed." 4. In this appeal the ground taken is that the State could not point out that the amount already paid is in excess of the amount due. If that be so, the appellants have the alternative remedy to move the learned Single Judge. Subject to the said remedy, the appeal is dismissed." 4. It is on the basis of the observation made in the said order dated 4.5.2012 that the appellant had the alternative remedy to move the learned Single Judge, the appellant i.e. Government of Assam in the Sports & Youth Welfare Department has preferred this review application. The primary ground, on which the review application has been filed, is that the respondent/writ petitioner had already received more the admissible amount and that the amount claimed by it is far in excess of the entitled amount. For a ready reference, the ground C and E of the review petition are quoted below: "C. For that admittedly though the respondent No. 1/ writ petitioner had received an amount of Rs. 100/- lakhs as mobilisation advance and Rs. 70.50/- lakhs as consultancy fee, it miserably failed to make any progress in the construction of the sports complex in question let alone completing the said project thereby misusing public money. As such, failure on the part of the State/review Petitioners to place on record the above factual aspect, this Hon'ble Court reached the conclusion that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was entitled to payment of Rs. 1,30,62,200/- as dues for the construction work referred to above while rendering the impugned judgment dated 10.09.2009. Therefore, it is a fit case for review. D..... E. For that assuming, while not admitting, that the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner started construction of the project at Aminngaon, North Guwahati, but in terms of the assessment carried out by the respondent no. 3, the assessed value of the construction comes to Rs. 1,30,62,200/- crores which is much less than the amount of Rs. 1,70,50,00/- crores which ahs admittedly been paid to the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner in advance and, as such, the claim of outstanding liabilities of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner is legally not tenable. 3, the assessed value of the construction comes to Rs. 1,30,62,200/- crores which is much less than the amount of Rs. 1,70,50,00/- crores which ahs admittedly been paid to the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner in advance and, as such, the claim of outstanding liabilities of the respondent no. 1/writ petitioner is legally not tenable. However, despite due diligence exercised by the review petitioner the said factual position could not be brought to the notice of this Hon'ble Court and, as such, an error apparent on the face of it has crept in the decision under review which needs to be corrected for the ends of justice." 5. Although as per the requirement of the provision of Gauhati High Court Rules, an application for review of judgment shall set forth plainly and concisely the grounds on which a review is sought, and shall contain a certificate by an advocate of the Court similar, mutatis mutandis, to that prescribed in appeals from appellate decrees (See Chapter V, R.6), in the instant review application, although set out certain purported ground, but they are not supported by any certificate of an advocate. Needless to say that entertaining a review application, an order of the Court cannot be lightly interfered with, more particularly when two writ appeals referred to above have already been disposed of. As has been held by the Apex Court in Sow Chandra Kanta vs. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500 , review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper. The very strict need for compliance with the required factors towards entertaining a review application is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step. For a ready reference, the relevant observation of the Apex Court in the said judgment is quoted below: ".....A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step." 6. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and over-ruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. The very strict need for compliance with these factors is the rationale behind the insistence of counsel's certificate which should not be a routine affair or a habitual step." 6. In the instant case, as will be evident from the order dated 6.4.2011 passed in W.A. No. 11/2011, a letter dated 18.1.2010 was handed over by the then Director, Sports & Youth Welfare Department, Assam to the Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Sports & Youth Welfare Department stating therein that a request had already been made to the Guwahati Development Department of the Government of Assam for providing an amount of Rs. 130.622 lakhs for making payment to the respondent/writ petitioner vide Govt. letter dated 5.12.2009. After disposal of the said writ appeal, the second appeal was filed and as recorded in the order passed in this proceeding (8.10.2015), the said order was not placed before the Court while entertaining the second appeal being W.A. No. 118/2012. The writ appeal was dismissed by order dated 4.5.2012. Once the appeal was dismissed, coupled with the disposal of the earlier appeal, the matter cannot be re-opened in the garb of a review petition, for which liberty was also granted while disposing of the appeals. Even otherwise also having regard to the grounds assigned in the review petition, I am of the considered opinion that the grounds do not conform to the requirement of entertaining a review application exercising review jurisdiction on the set principles towards exercising the same. 7. In Abbai Maligai Partnership Firm vs. K. Santhakumaran, AIR 1999 SC 1486 dealing with the judicial discipline and exercising of review jurisdiction by High Court after dismissal of SLPs, it was held by the Apex Court that entertainment of review petition by High Court against self same orders after dismissal of SLPs is subversive of judicial discipline. As noted above, in the instant case also appeals against the judgment under review were dismissed by the above referred orders and thus there is no scope for review of the judgment in question. 8. It will be pertinent to mention here that when the matter was last taken up on 8.10.2015, the following order was passed. As noted above, in the instant case also appeals against the judgment under review were dismissed by the above referred orders and thus there is no scope for review of the judgment in question. 8. It will be pertinent to mention here that when the matter was last taken up on 8.10.2015, the following order was passed. "This review petition is pending since April, 2013 without, however, any interim order. The order of the learned Single Judge dated 10.9.2009 passed in WP (C) No. 3273/2006, there was a direction to the respondents to pay the petitioner the outstanding dues Rs. 1,30,62,200/- as was assessed by the authority of the PWD and communicated vide letter dated 17.7.2002. The amount was to be paid within two months. Being aggrieved by the said order, the Chief Engineer, PWD had preferred an appeal being W.A. No. 100/2011, which was dismissed vide order dated 6.4.2011. While doing so it was recorded that request had already made to the Guwahati Development Department (GDD) for providing the amount of Rs. 130.622 lakhs for payment to the petitioner vide Govt. letter dated 5.9.2009. Inspite of the aforesaid position, another appeal being W.A. No. 118/2012 was preferred by the Sports & Youth Welfare Department, which was also party respondent to the writ petition and the appeal was dismissed by order dated 4.5.2012. This review petition has been filed only on the basis of the observation made in the said order dated 4.5.2012 to the effect that it would be open for the appellant to move the learned Single Judge in respect of the point that the amount that had already been paid to the petitioner was in excess of the amount due. It appears that the earlier order dated 6.4.2011 towards dismissal of the W.A. No. 100/2011 was not placed before taking up the subsequent appeal, Be that as it may, on the basis of the subsequent order dated 4.5.2012 in the subsequent appeal, the State of Assam has filed this review petition. While Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner submits that once the first appeal was dismissed, there was no scope for the second writ appeal. He further submits only on the basis of the liberty granted to the appellant, this review petition could not have been filed seeking reopening of the matter. Mr. While Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. Counsel representing the respondent/writ petitioner submits that once the first appeal was dismissed, there was no scope for the second writ appeal. He further submits only on the basis of the liberty granted to the appellant, this review petition could not have been filed seeking reopening of the matter. Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned Advocate General, Assam placing reliance on the assessment report dated 16.7.2002 submits that as per the said report, at best the petitioner was entitled to Rs. 1,30,62,200/-. However, on perusal of the report it cannot be said that the same was drawn conclusively, rather it was indicated that the assessment made should not be considered as certificate of the work already done. Mr. Buragohan, learned A.G. Assam on being asked to point out as to on what basis it can be said that the petitioner was paid in excess of the amount due, could not point out anything. He prays for time till 4.11.2015. The prayer is allowed. List on 4.11.2015, on which date, the submission of Mr. Pathak, learned Sr. Counsel representing the writ petitioner about non-maintainability of the review petition after dismissal of the Writ Appeals will also be considered." 9. By producing the letter dated 7.10.2015 of the Government of Assam in the Sports & Youth Welfare Department addressed to Mr. A.C. Buragohain, learned A.G., Assam, one month time was prayed for. For a ready reference, the contents of the said letter are quoted below: "Sir, In inviting a reference to your letter on the subject cited above, I am directed to inform you that necessary materials and instruction as requested regarding the aforementioned could not be submitted in time due to lack of sufficient time. Hence, prayer petition for one month more time may kindly be submitted before the Hon'ble High Court for necessary reply/report that can be prepared relating to the above mentioned Review Petition." 10. Nothing new has been brought on record for which one month time was sought for by the said letter and was allowed. 11. Above being the position, I see no reason to review the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2009. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Although there was no stay order operating in this proceeding, but as submitted by Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. 11. Above being the position, I see no reason to review the impugned judgment and order dated 10.09.2009. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Although there was no stay order operating in this proceeding, but as submitted by Mr. P. Pathak, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, the respondents are yet to comply with the judgment in question. Consequent upon dismissal of the review petition, the respondents are hereby directed to implement the directions contained in the impugned judgment and order. Let the required exercise be carried out as expeditiously as possible, preferably within three months.