ORDER : Sanjay Yadav, J. 1. Review of order dated 27.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 4205/2019 is being sought vide present petition. 2. The Writ petition was directed against the communication dated 07.07.2018; whereby, the Power Purchase Agreement dated 18.09.2015 was terminated, the reason being the failure in achieving condition subsequent as well as commissioning of the 50 mw Solar PV Project. It needs a mention that earlier by communication dated 11.08.2017 the said agreement was terminated. However, on its being challenged in Writ Petition No. 12880/2017, wherein, on the findings that the reasons assigned in the termination order were not germane to the facts and additional reasons came to fore during hearing, the order dated 11.08.2017 was set-aside with the liberty to pass fresh orders in terms of the Agreement. Armed with the said liberty fresh orders were passed on 07.07.2018. 3. It is not in dispute that the respondent is a Power Purchasing Company under the Electricity Act, 2003 and the petitioner is responsible for power procurement in the State of M.P. That in furtherance to the Solar Policy for encouraging generation of Power through Solar Power Projects an agreement was entered between the Petitioner and Respondent on 18.08.2015 captioned as Power Purchase Agreement for setting up a 50 mw Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Power Plant at village Bedhsya, District Khandwa and sale of power from the said plant exclusively to present petitioner. The total permissible period to commission the Project was 24 months from the date of Agreement i.e. from 18.09.2015 to 17.09.2017. The Project involved two milestones, viz, (i) to achieve condition subsequent after signing of PPA, i.e. permission, procurement of land. Etc. and (ii) actual commission of project. The project certified to be complete much prior to 24 months i.e. 04.07.2017 and the Chief Electrical Inspector to Government. (CEIG) approved on 09.08.2017. That on the basis of undisputed facts it was found: "13. From the facts on record, it is axiomatic that the period to commission the Project was 24 months i.e. from 18.09.2015 to 17.09.2017 from the date of PPA. The contract was terminated on 11.08.2017 even before expiry of the outer limit of 24 months. Earlier, PPA was terminated vide order dated 11.08.2017 on the ground of delay of 54 days in achieving the first milestone which was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 12880/2017. The contract was terminated on 11.08.2017 even before expiry of the outer limit of 24 months. Earlier, PPA was terminated vide order dated 11.08.2017 on the ground of delay of 54 days in achieving the first milestone which was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 12880/2017. It is apt to mention that the Project involves two milestones, namely, (i) to achieve Condition subsequent after signing of PPA (Permission, Procurement of land etc.) and (ii) actual commission of Project. It is not in dispute that the Project was certified to be completed much prior to 24 months ending on 17.09.2017 and notice of commissioning was issued on 04.07.2017. The CEIG approval was also granted on 09.08.2017, Another inspection was done on 21.04.2018 after nine months of notice of commissioning and CEIG approval, in spite thereof the impugned order has been passed." 4. On these findings the impugned order dated 07.07.2018 was faulted with, accordingly, while setting aside the same the petitioner (i.e. present respondent) was directed to submit necessary applications for statutory sanction for operation of the unit, reportedly ready for physical commission, and the State was directed to decide those applications expeditiously by order under Review. 5. The Review of the order is sought precisely on the contentions contained in paragraph 7 of the petition, wherein, it is state that the respondent committed fraud on office of the Chief Electrical Inspector as much as the unique/distinctive serial numbers of the inverters mentioned in the Chief Electrical Inspector's report dated 09.08.2017 for the 10 Blocks of Power Project (each block of 5mw) are common/duplicate between one and another. In other words, it is urged that the entire project of respondent No. 1 is of 50mw, divided in to 10 blocks of 5mw, each block having 116/117 inverters each of power capacity of 43 KW (i.e. 43 x 116 = 4998 KW or about 5mw). These inverters which are aggregators of power generated from the solar modules/panel, RS DC and then it flows through these inverters and gets converted to AC, have unique serial numbers which when later matched physically were found to be common/duplicate and interchangeable used in same or other blocks which makes the report dated 09.08.2017 by CEIG doubtful. It is urged that some of the inverter numbers were not legible and were not analysed. It is urged that some of the inverter numbers were not legible and were not analysed. It is urged that 7.99 mw (i.e. 186*43) of Power Generation certified to be commissioned is incorrect and the report of the CEIG dated 09.08.2017 is replete with infirmities. On these contentions the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 27.02.2020. 6. Contradicting the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, the respondent taking us through the pleadings in the Writ petition and the Return filed in the present petition, it is contended that the theory of fraud is cooked up by the present petitioner. It is urged that there was specific pleadings as regard to approval by the CEIG for commissioning on 09.08.2017 in paragraph 5.14 of the Writ petition stating therein: "Under Regulation 32 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures Relating to Safety and Electrical Supply) Regulations, 2010 read with Section 162 of the Electricity Act, 2003, a generating station above 5MVA is required to be inspected by the CEIG before commissioning. The CEIG had certified that all infrastructure and installations pertaining to the Project were ready and the Petitioner may proceed with the commissioning activities. It is to be noted that the requirement of obtaining the CEIG approval by the petitioner is also set out in Article 5.3(a) of the PPA (as part of the activities/conditions required for commercial operation/commissioning of the Project) and the Petitioner had acted in fulfilment of this obligation." 7. These contentions, it is urged were never disputed by the present petitioner who filed an exhaustive reply/return in the writ petition. Countering the contention that fraud is committed because 186 out of the 1163 unique/distinctive serial number of inverters mentioned in the CEIG report are common/duplicate and that unique serial number of 140 inverters are not legible in the CEIG report, it is urged that the petitioner has glossed over the report which shows that all the inverter serial numbers are quite legible, therefore, the contention of they being illegible is misleading. It is further contended that the copy of CEIG report was marked to Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. respondent No. 4 which is under the control of the petitioner and being a privy to the CEIG report since August, 2017 it is incredible for the petitioner to allege that certain inverter serial number were not legible. It is further contended that the copy of CEIG report was marked to Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Ltd. respondent No. 4 which is under the control of the petitioner and being a privy to the CEIG report since August, 2017 it is incredible for the petitioner to allege that certain inverter serial number were not legible. As to the contention that the majority of the unique/distinctive serial numbers in CEIG report are common/duplicate, it is contended that the majority of the unique/distinctive serial numbers in the CEIG Report are common or duplicate, it has identified 186 inverters whose serial numbers are repeated elsewhere in the CEIG Report. Even on the fact of Petitioner's allegations, 186 out of 1163 total number of inverters installed at the Project do not constitute majority. Further, it must be appreciated that the unique serial numbers affixed to inverters are mere identifiers for the purpose of record-keeping, warranty claims etc. Unlike the old technology deployed in solar power plants which required installation of large central inverters (10-15 for a 50 MW plant), modern technology enables deployment of what are called 'string inverters' which can be easily swapped or replaced depending on the plant requirement. Moreover, all the 1163 inverters installed by the Respondent No. 1 are of identical technical specifications and procured from the same supplier (i.e., M/s. Huawei International Col. Ltd.) and, therefore, mere mention of incorrect serial numbers for some of the inverters in the CEIG Report does not establish that the Project was not ready for commissioning as on 09.08.2017 or, that the CEIG Report is not credible. There is no dispute that the CEIG officers visited the Project site in the first week of August 2017 and post such inspection of the Project issued the CEIG Report on 09.08.2017. The CEIG Report certifies physical readiness of the Project for commissioning. The Project installations were inspected by a 5-member team from the CEIG's office over a period of 3-4 days beginning on August 01, 2017. It is inconceivable that multiple inverters in different blocks were missing or not installed (which is the case set up by the Petitioner to cast a doubt on the authenticity of the CEIG Report) but the same were not spotted or identified during the physical inspection of the site by the 5-member teach of CEIG Officials. It is inconceivable that multiple inverters in different blocks were missing or not installed (which is the case set up by the Petitioner to cast a doubt on the authenticity of the CEIG Report) but the same were not spotted or identified during the physical inspection of the site by the 5-member teach of CEIG Officials. It must also be appreciated that the Respondent No. 1 did not stand to gain anything by not installing 186 inverters out of a total 1163 inverters. In fact, the total cost of all the inverters (approximately Rs. 16 crores) is less than 5 % of the total project cost incurred by the Respondent No. 1 in setting up the Project, and the cost of 186 inverters is less than 1 % of the total project cost. The petitioner's case, therefore, suggests that while the Respondent No. 1 had spent more than 99% of the monies required to set up the Project but was unable to spend the remaining 1% to procure or install the 186 inverters. 8. The respondent has further relied on the inspection report of Project in April 2018 wherein, the observation on site Inspection reveals: "3. Verification of Solar PV Plant in confirmation with the report of CEIG. Power plant of 50 MW is divided into 10 blocks, each equal to 5 MW. Each Block is made up of 57-58 ACCBs (AC Combiner Box). Each ACCB consists of 2 string inverters. Each string inverter consists of 160 solar panels in 4 rows i.e. 40 PV panels in each row. The equipment installed in switch yard of pooling substation i.e. 2 nos. 25 MVA inverter transformers, 3 nos. 132 kV breaker, 3 No. VCB (outdoor type), 11 no. 11 kV VCB (indoor type) and 10 nos. 5 MVA 0.5/11 kV inverter transformers and 0.5/0.415 KV auxiliary transformer with 11 kV VCB in each block are found installed as mentioned in CEIG report. 4. Any other specific observation in respect of installation of solar PV plant. In block 9 and 10, string inverters were not found at many locations but those locations had solar panels installed. Interconnections of PV panels (cobbling/string work) at these locations are not found connected with each other. Further, at some locations the cable and earthing work is observed incomplete & suspended." 9. In block 9 and 10, string inverters were not found at many locations but those locations had solar panels installed. Interconnections of PV panels (cobbling/string work) at these locations are not found connected with each other. Further, at some locations the cable and earthing work is observed incomplete & suspended." 9. It is contended that the petitioner's inspection team found everything to be in order and consistent with the CEIG Report in April 2018 except a few stolen parts, which were replaced by the Respondent No. 1. The petitioner could not produce any material to controvert these undisputed facts either in the first or in the second writ proceedings before this Hon'ble Court. Therefore, the case set up by the petitioner in the present Review petition that the CEIG Report lacks credibility (merely because certain inverter serial numbers have been found to be duplicated) and that even part of the Project was not ready for commissioning as on 09.08.2017 is completely baseless and without any merit or substance whatsoever. 10. It is further contended that the CEIG Report, as a matter of fact, specified that the following equipment were installed at the Project site: i. 1163 string inverters; ii. 10 inverter transformers; iii. 10 auxiliary transformers. iv. 3 vacuum circuit breakers (indoor type); and v. 3 vacuum circuit breakers (outdoor type). 11. These installations are also corroborated by the MPPMCL Inspection Report of April 2018. In fact, on July 4, 2017, the Respondent No. 1, while addressing its letter to Madhya Pradesh Power Transmission Company Limited ("MPPTCL"), issued a "Notice to Commission" to MPPTCL and the petitioner informing them that the Respondent No. 1 intended to commission the Project by July 31, 2017 and was taking steps towards the same. This intimation was issued pursuant to Article 5.1 (e) of the PPA. The Respondent No. 1 invited the Petitioner and MPPTCL to depute its officials to undertake necessary site inspection and testing to help achieve the target commissioning date. If the petitioner had any doubts regarding the physical completion of the plant as on August 2017, it ought to have conducted an inspection of the site (for which it was invited by the Respondent No. 1) but it never undertook a site inspection. If the petitioner had any doubts regarding the physical completion of the plant as on August 2017, it ought to have conducted an inspection of the site (for which it was invited by the Respondent No. 1) but it never undertook a site inspection. It, is, therefore, clear that an inadvertent error of clerical nature in the CEIG Report is sought to be turned into an allegation of fraud with the clear intent to escape from directions under the Impugned order. 12. It is further submitted that the Review of the order dated 27.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No. 4205/2019 in these fact situation is not warranted as the petitioner has failed to establish the alleged fraud. Lastly, it is urged that, the present Review Petition is filed on 01.09.2020 and immediately thereafter vide letter No. F 22-07/2020/1-10 dated 07.09.2020 the State Government through its Department of General Administration has requested Director General, EOW to conduct an enquiry in respect of the irregularities committed. It is urged that the present petition is filed contemplating the said action to overcome the enquiry. 13. On these contentions respondent No. 1 seeks dismissal of the petition. 14. Trite it is that an application for Review lies when: (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. 15. Principal and sole ground raised by the petitioner in present petition is that it was later discovered that a fraud has been committed in preparation of report by the CEIG. 16. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit. 15. Principal and sole ground raised by the petitioner in present petition is that it was later discovered that a fraud has been committed in preparation of report by the CEIG. 16. True it is that when a judgment or order is obtained by fraud it cannot be said to be a judgment or order in law. But it need to be established that the judgment or order has been obtained by practicing fraud. 17. In the case at hand, the respondent-petitioner on the basis of the report by CEIG sought the commission of the project. The said report is a part of writ petition annexed as Annexure P/11. The report extensively covers 10 blocks and switchyard stipulating therein that subject to the compliance of stipulations in Electricity Act, 2003, Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2010, Regulation 43 and 32, the respondent/petitioner has granted has granted permission for a period of one month. The record reveals that the report and approval was presented to present petitioner; evidently, no doubt was raised by the petitioner as to the report and permission as would suggest fraud being played by the CEIG. It appears that having been subjected to an inquiry by the Economic Offence Wing, the petitioner and its functionaries are trying to create defence by finding faults with the report submitted by the CEIG. Fraud as observed in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu vs. Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853 is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is cheating intended to get an advantage. Learned counsel for the petitioner though laboured hard to bring home the theory of fraud allegedly committed in either getting the report from CEIG or in its presentation by present respondent; however, utterly fails to establish it as would attract the exercise of review jurisdiction. 18. In view whereof, review petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.