JUDGMENT Anand Pathak, J. - Heard on I.A.No.4605/2020, an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. The review petition is barred by 6 days and reasons are assigned in the application. On due consideration, application is allowed and delay in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the order dated 18-08-2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1438/2015 whereby the petition preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. Precisely stated facts of the case are that petitioner was in possession of arms licence. Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri vide its letter dated 14-01-2013 informed the District Magistrate, Shivpuri that petitioner and one Balram Yadav resident of village Bamara Tahsil Porsa District Shivpuri shared some land dispute and due to that dispute, petitioner along with other persons allegedly assaulted Balram Yadav by lathi resulting in registration of FIR vide Crime No.288/2012 at Police Station Pohri. Since petitioner is having arms licence of double barrel 12 bore gun, therefore, apprehension was raised by Superintendent of Police, Shivpuri regarding misuse of weapon because of existing dispute. 3. On the basis of such report, District Magistrate, Shivpuri issued a show cause notice to the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner vide rely dated 24-04-2013. It was the submission that false case got registered against the petitioner and other co-accused at the instance of Balram Yadav. Petitioner never misused his weapon. 4. After considering the submission and material available on record, District Magistrate, Shivpuri cancelled the arms licence of petitioner vide order dated 17-09-2013 and this gave occasion to petitioner to file appeal before the Commissioner, Gwalior Division but the appeal preferred by the petitioner also resulted into dismissal and vide order dated 29-08-2014 appeal got dismissed. 5. Therefore, petitioner preferred the petition before this Court and submitted that merely on the basis of apprehension, arms licence of petitioner cannot be cancelled. False report got registered at the instance of Balram Yadav. He is innocent and for his safety he requires arms licence. 6. After considering the rival submissions and looking to the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act, this Court dismissed the writ petition. 7. False report got registered at the instance of Balram Yadav. He is innocent and for his safety he requires arms licence. 6. After considering the rival submissions and looking to the provisions contained in Section 17 of the Arms Act, this Court dismissed the writ petition. 7. In review petition, it is the grievance of petitioner that he could not refer the fact that dispute exited between the petitioner and Balram Yadav resulted into settlement of the case and he referred the order dated 01-10-2016 by which matter has been settled between present petitioner (along with other co-accused) as well as Balram Yadav. Therefore, case was settled and accused of the case were acquitted on the basis of compromise. Learned counsel further referred the order dated 24-06-2014 passed by District Magistrate, Shivpuri in which Balram Yadav was externed from the District Shivpuri under Madhya Pradesh Rajya Suraksha Adhiniyam, 1990. 8. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, these facts could not be brought before the Court, therefore, in the interest of justice, documents and facts have been brought on record. It is further submitted that since solitary disputed existed between the parties and on the basis of said dispute, arms licence of petitioner has been revoked which is arbitrary and illegal. 9. Learned counsel also referred the order dated 29-08-2014 passed by the Commissioner, Gwalior Division in appellate order wherein although appeal of petitioner has been dismissed but direction has been given to District Magistrate, Shivpuri that he is at liberty to take appropriate decision for maintaining peace and tranquility of the village where petitioner and complainant Balram Yadav reside. Therefore, said observation be considered by this Court and appropriate order be passed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents/State opposed the prayer and submitted that once the order has been passed in writ petition No.1438/2015 then no ground existed for review. Subsequent production of documents cannot give any chance to the petitioner to reagitate the matter. He prayed for dismissal of review petition. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 12. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down. Subsequent production of documents cannot give any chance to the petitioner to reagitate the matter. He prayed for dismissal of review petition. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under review. 12. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , principles relating to review jurisdiction have been laid down. The principles relating to review jurisdiction may be summarized as follows: When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, (1922) 49 IndApp 144(1921-22) and approved by this Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, (1954) AIR SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". When the review will not be maintainable: "(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The meres possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 13. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. (ix) Reviews is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 13. It is also held by the Apex Court in the case of State Of West Bengal & Ors. Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612 that mistake or error apparent on the face of the record means that mistake or error which is prima facie visible and does not require any detail examination. Erroneous view of law is not a ground for review and review cannot partake the category of the appeal. 14. Considering the legal position as mentioned above and the facts of the case, it appears that petitioner has tried to reagitate the controversy on the basis of facts which were not narrated and brought to the notice of this Court earlier. Even otherwise, if the dispute between the parties has resolved through settlement then also it appears that petitioner does not have any apprehension of retaliation from the other side therefore, requirement to possess arms does not exist on urgent note. Even otherwise, provisions of Arms Act specially Section 17 of Arms Act give sufficient discretion to the authority in respect of revocation of arms licence. Subjective satisfaction of the authority cannot be looked into writ jurisdiction. Therefore, contentions raised by the petitioner are misplaced. Possession of arms licence cannot be treated as Fundamental Right. Here no procedural irregularity or malafide has been alleged by the petitioner. Therefore, conclusions drawn by the authority are just and proper. 15. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case for review is made out. Needless to say that if any situation arises for the petitioner in future then he is always at liberty to appear before the authority for redressal of his legitimate grievance and to make legitimate demand regarding arms licence. Review petition sans merits and is hereby dismissed.