JUDGMENT : Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.:- 1. This bunch of Letters Patent Appeals is taken up together for consideration. 2. Number of writ petitions were decided by the learned writ Court vide its judgment dated 29.01.2014. The appellants filed review petitions seeking review of the judgment. The review petitions were dismissed by learned writ Court vide its order dated 29.12.2014. 3. Feeling aggrieved of the decision of the learned writ Court dated 29.12.2014, passed in clubbed review petitions, the appellants have filed these appeals seeking setting aside of the judgment of learned Writ Court and allowing the review petitions. 4. Objection is raised about the maintainability of the appeals. Mr. G.M. Reshi, learned Dy. AG invited the attention of the Court to Order 47 Rule 7(1) and submitted that since the review petitions have been dismissed by the learned writ Court, the appeals are not maintainable. 5. In support of the maintainability of the appeals, Mr. J.H. Reshi, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled State of Assam v. Ripa Sarma, reported in AIR 2013 SC 3588 and submitted that the appeals are maintainable. Learned counsel also referred to prayer clause of the appeals and submitted that besides seeking setting aside of the impugned judgment, he has also prayed for allowing of review petitions and for reviewing and modifying the writ Court judgment. 6. In view of the mandate contained in Order 47 Rule 7(1), and in absence of any challenge to the basic judgment which was sought to be reviewed, the appeals are held not to be maintainable. 7. Para 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the above referred Supreme Court judgment are taken note of:- “5. In support of the submission that the present special leave petition is not maintainable, Mr. Bhushan has relied on three judgments of this Court. In Shankar Motiram Nale v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajpur, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 753 , it has been held that the special leave petition which has been filed against the order rejecting the review petition would be barred under Order 47 Rule 7 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in Suseel Finance and Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 675 . The aforesaid judgment has been followed by this Court in Suseel Finance and Leasing Co. v. M. Lata and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 675 . This Court held that not only was it bound by the aforesaid judgment in Shanker Motiram Nale Case but was also in agreement with it. The law laid down in both the aforesaid judgments was further reiterated in the case of M.N. Haider and Ors v. Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others reported in (2004) 13 SCC 677 . 6. In view of the above, the law seems to be well settled that in the absence of a challenge to the main judgment, the special leave petition filed challenging only the subsequent order rejecting the review petition, would not be maintainable. 7. Faced with this situation, Mr. Avijit Roy, learned counsel appearing for the State of Assam, seeks to rely on a subsequent judgment of this Court in Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar reported in (2008) 14 SCC 295: ( AIR 2008 SC 3000 : 2008 AIR SCW 5055). He has made a specific reference to paragraphs 22 and 23 of the judgment. In paragraph 23 of the judgment, it is observed as follows:- “It was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that when the review petition was dismissed, the order passed by the Division Bench in intra-court appeal got merged in the order of review petition. But even otherwise, when the order passed in the review petition is challenged, it would not be proper to dismiss this appeal particularly when leave was granted in SLP after hearing the parties. We, therefore, reject the objection raised by the writ petitioner.” 9. In the present case, the preliminary objection has been raised at the threshold. In addition, it is an inescapable fact that the judgment rendered in Eastern Coalfields Limited has been rendered in ignorance of the earlier judgments of the Benches of coequal strength, rendering the same per incuriam. Therefore, it cannot be elevated to the status of precedent. In view of the above, we accept the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel.” 8. When review petition is rejected, the rejection order merges with the original order, and order of rejecting review petition loses its independent character. By rejecting review application, what the Court in essence does, is that it maintains its original order. In view of the above, we accept the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel.” 8. When review petition is rejected, the rejection order merges with the original order, and order of rejecting review petition loses its independent character. By rejecting review application, what the Court in essence does, is that it maintains its original order. Until such time original order is challenged the order rejecting review petition remains unassailable, having no independent character in law. 9. For the above stated reasons these letters patent appeals are held to be not maintainable and are, accordingly, dismissed alongwith all connected MPs. The appellants are at liberty to file the appropriate proceedings.