JUDGMENT Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the order as contained in Memo no.940 dated 22.04.2016 as also the order contained in Memo no.3205 dated 17.11.2017 passed by the Registrar Co-operative Society, Jharkhand, Ranchi is under challenge. 2. The brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that since the land in question was allotted in his favour on payment of Rs. 18,500/- as per the lottery held on 17.08.1988 by the Bokaro Industrial Area Development Authority and thereafter the subsequent money has also been deposited. The allotment letter was issued on 16.02.1993 and after its allotment the construction work was also started, but in the meanwhile a miscellaneous case was filed by the erstwhile allottee, Shri Kedar Nath Pathak being Misc. Case No.65 of 1993 for quashing of the order of cancellation of allotment of the plot in question which was allotted in his favour on 16.02.1993 although at para 9 of the writ petition it has been stated that allotment has been made on 17.08.1988. Against the order of cancellation of the allotment which has been allotted in his favour, the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna rejected the miscellaneous case against which an appeal was preferred being Appeal Case No.06 of 2010. The Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi after looking to the enquiry report as also considering the violation of principle of natural justice since prior to cancellation of allotment in favour of Kedar Nath Pathak, no notice was issued and hence quashed the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No.65 of 1993 against which a review was preferred by the petitioner before the said authority being Review Case No.17 of 2016 but the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi which has not been entertained having come to the conclusion that no new fact has been brought on record, warranting the authority to exercise the power of the review against these two issues present writ petition has been filed. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand has not considered the factual aspect in right prospective, according to him notice has also been given to the respondent no.4, namely Kedar Nath Pathak but it has wrongly been pleaded that no notice was given to him and on the basis of that conclusion has been arrived out by the said authority of violation of principle of natural justice. 4. He further submits that he is the rightful allottee of the said plot which has been allotted after the cancellation of the said allotment made in favour of respondent no.5 vide order issued on 12.02.1993 and therefore both the orders are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. Abhay Prakash, A.C to A.A.G and Ms. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 have submitted that there is no error in the order impugned rather the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi while exercising the power under appellate jurisdiction has rightly quashed the order passed in Misc. Case No.65 of 1993 after looking three enquiry reports wherefrom it was found that there was so many mismanagement in the Managing Committee, on the basis of the said report the erstwhile State of Bihar has issued notice against Managing Committee appointing the Special Officer. 6. It has further been pointed out by the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Ranchi that before cancellation of the allotment no notice was issued to the erstwhile allottee, therefore, he reached to the conclusion of violation of principle of natural justice and prevailing mismanagement in the Managing Committee and hence quashed the order passed in Misc. Case No.65 of 1993, therefore, there is no infirmity in the same. 7. They further submits that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi has not interfered under its review jurisdiction since the said authority has found no error apparent on the face of record since the scope of review is only if there is error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the review has rightly been rejected. 8. 7. They further submits that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi has not interfered under its review jurisdiction since the said authority has found no error apparent on the face of record since the scope of review is only if there is error apparent on the face of record and therefore, the review has rightly been rejected. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciation of the rival submission it is evident from the material available on record that the land in question was allotted in favour of one Kedar Nath Pathak, therefore, by virtue of lottery held on 17.08.1988 by the Bokaro Industrial Development Authority in the name of Udyami Asasiya Sahkari Lohanchal Complex Society Limited and the Registrar, Co-operative Society and the said allottee has deposited the required money but all of a sudden the said allotment was cancelled vide order dated 12.02.1993 against which a miscellaneous case being Misc. Case No.65 of 1993 was preferred questioning the cancellation of the said allotment order, the authority has decided to interfere with the same against which appeal has been preferred by the petitioner being Appeal Case No.06 of 2010. 9. The appellate authority prior to segregation of the stage i.e. the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, State of Bihar has got from the record that the Managing Committee was suffering from so many malpractices which was surfaced on the basis of three enquiry reports. The enquiry was going on in the Managing Committee and the basis upon which notice was issued upon the Managing Committee and Special Officer was appointed and in that course the allotment made in favour of Kedar Nath Pathak was cancelled on 12.02.1993. 10. It has also been gathered by the appellate authority that the principles of natural justice has not been followed. 11. The said appeal was transferred to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand, Ranchi after enactment of the Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 and in consequence thereof the entire record was transferred to the Jharkhand and the Registrar, Co-operative Society, Jharkhand has acted as appellate authority and has passed the order on the basis of document forwarded by the erstwhile State of Bihar, therefore, Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Jharkhand after perusing three enquiry reports has passed the order considering the grievance of violation of principles of natural justice and has quashed the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies in Misc. Case No.65 of 1993. 12. So far as legality and propriety of the same is concerned, this Court has gathered that the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna has found from three consecutive report that the management was suffering from several malpractices and therefore the Special Officer was appointed. The cancellation of allotment made in favour of Kedar Nath Pathak was also consequence of the said mismanagement since his allotment was made on 17.08.1998 and has been cancelled on 12.02.1993. 13. The original authority has not appreciated this aspect of the matter and declined to interfere in cancellation of order of allotment but the appellate authority after going through the consecutive enquiry report found that mismanagement was going on with the management as also the principle of natural justice has not been followed has come to the conclusion that the said allottee -Kedar Nath Pathak has been subjected to victimization and in consequence thereof the order passed by the Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bihar, Patna in Misc. Case No.65 of 1993 has been quashed. 14. According to the considered view of this Court, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ranchi while acting as appellate authority has gone through the factual aspects, more particularly the enquiry report and in consequence thereof the order passed by the original Authority has been quashed. 15. The petitioner has not brought out any new facts warranting this Court to interfere with the finding of the appellate authority and therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order since there is no error apparent on the face of record or perversity in the order impugned. 16. It is settled position of law that the writ Court cannot act as appellate court, while exercising jurisdiction if there is no error apparent on the face of record but no such ground has been pointed out rather the appellate authority has considered three enquiry reports and the violation of principles of natural justice where the petitioner who was party as respondent no.4 contested the case at length. 17. 17. So far as order passed under review jurisdiction by the authority according to the considered view of this Court power of review can only be exercised if there is error apparent on face of record order is without or beyond jurisdiction or any new fact which could not have been brought on record in spite of due diligence but no such ground has been made out by the petitioner before the reviewing authority. 18. It is the settled position of law that power of review cannot be exercised in the guise of appeal. 19. In view thereof, this Court has found no error in the order passed by the appellate as well as reviewing authority. Accordingly, the writ petition lacks merit, hence dismissed.