JUDGMENT : 1. This review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Code, 1908 has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that the Review petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 02.06.2023 may kindly be reviewed and modified in light of the averments made above and the writ petition may be heard on merits. Any other order, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Dr.Sachin Acharya, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Raghu Raj Sharma, are that the review petitioner was elected as Chairperson of the Municipal Council, Nagaur. Subsequently, during the tenure of the review petitioner as Chairperson, a patta was issued in respect of a certain land, in contravention of the status quo order dated 26.10.2017 passed by this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice to the review petitioner, and subsequently, the suspension order dated 16.05.2023 was passed against the review petitioner. The said suspension order was challenged before this Hon’ble Court by the review petitioner by preferring the above-numbered S.B.C.W.P No.7396/2023, which was dismissed vide 02.06.2023. 2.1. Against the aforesaid judgment dated 02.06.2023, the review petitioner has also preferred a Special Appeal (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.498/2023) -Smt. Mithu Bothra Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court, which was decided as withdrawn on 12.07.2023 with liberty to prefer a review petition and raise all the grounds which have been taken by the appellant (review petition herein) in the appeal. Hence, the present review petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nagaur submitted a factual report dated 29.08.2022 to the Deputy Director (Regional) Local Self Department, Ajmer stating therein that the patta was issue after following the due process of law. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the review petitioner filed an application on 15.05.2023 and sought time to file the reply to the show cause notice dated 12.05.2023, but on the very next day i.e. 16.05.2023, the respondent passed the suspension order. 3.1. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the review petitioner filed an application on 15.05.2023 and sought time to file the reply to the show cause notice dated 12.05.2023, but on the very next day i.e. 16.05.2023, the respondent passed the suspension order. It was also submitted that the review petitioner filed a reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 03.06.2023. 3.2. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that on a previous occasion, the Tehsildar, Nagaur in its report dated 29.10.2021 submitted before the Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nagaur stated that the land in question (Khasra No.405) is not Agore/Talab/Aad land, and it was recorded as gair mumkin abadi in the revenue records and the government offices and residential colonies have been constructed thereon. 3.3. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the notice dated 03.02.2023 issued by the District Collector, Nagaur was not issued to the review petitioner, but the Commissioner Municipal Council, Nagaur who sought legal opinion and issued the notice 08.02.2023 to the patta holder. Therefore, the review petitioner was having no knowledge about the interim order so operating. 3.4. Learned Senior Counsel also submitted that the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 12.05.2023, which was served on her as late as on 15.05.2023. That apart, the review petitioner was only granted a meager time period of 3 days in the said show cause notice. Therefore, as per learned Senior Counsel, no opportunity of hearing was given by the respondent to the review petitioner before passing the order impugned in the writ petition. It was thus submitted that the entire action of the respondent is against the principles of natural justice as well as the provisions of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009. 3.5. In support of such submissions, learned Senior Counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) Mohamed Hussain Gulam Ali Shariffi Vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr (2020) 14 SCC 392 ; (b) Surendra Kumar Garg & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1043 of 2003, decided on 24.09.2004) by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench; (c) Kamli Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 579/2023, decided on 27.01.2023) by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench; and (d) Pradeep Hinger Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. RLW 2008 (1) Raj 456. 4. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 579/2023, decided on 27.01.2023) by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench; and (d) Pradeep Hinger Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. RLW 2008 (1) Raj 456. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Balia, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vijay Bishnoi & Mr. Vinit R. Dave; Mr. Sunil Beniwal learned Additional Advocate General (AAG) appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the review petitioner, submitted that it is a settled law that the scope of review is rather limited, and only on account of an error apparent on the face of record, a review petition can be maintained; thus, while setting up an entirely new case on the basis of a new set of documents, a review petition cannot be maintainable. 4.1. It was further submitted that simply because the notice dated 03.02.2023 was addressed to the Commissioner and not to the review petitioner, this alone does not mitigate or affect the outcome of the suspension order, and it does not show in any manner that the review petitioner was not aware of the discrepancies and illegalities in the matter of issuance of the patta. 4.2. It was also submitted that the ULB, Nagaur itself had constituted a Committee vide order dated 28.02.2023 to enquire into the illegalities and irregularities committed during the tenure of the review petitioner in the matter of issuance of the patta in question. It was further submitted that in the reply to the show cause notice filed by the review-petitioner, she had stated that the entire proceedings of issuance of patta had been conducted, in accordance with law. 4.3. It was further submitted that the as per the Tehsildar’s report dated 03.02.2020, the land in question has been recorded as Abadi, and any obstruction in regard thereto would have adverse impact upon inflow of water into the Jada Talab. It was also submitted that the review-petitioner was directly involved in the illegal issuance of patta in question, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents was justified in the eye of law. 4.4. It was also submitted that the review-petitioner was directly involved in the illegal issuance of patta in question, and therefore, the entire action of the respondents was justified in the eye of law. 4.4. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed upon the following orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Hon’ble Court : (a) Bhura Lal Vs State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.759/1984, decided on 09.05.1985); (b) Nirmal Kumar Pitaliya Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17285/2021, decided on 01.02.2022). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case along with the judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the present review petition has been preferred seeking review of the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the above-numbered writ petition, whereby the suspension order dated 16.05.2023 passed against the petitioner was upheld, while dismissing the said writ petition. 7. This Court further observes that even though the notice dated 03.02.2023 was not directly issued to the review-petitioner, but it is clear that the review-petitioner was having knowledge about the illegal issuance of the patta, and also the fact that the interim order passed by this Hon’ble Court was operating in the matter pertaining to the land in question. 8. This Court also observes that the respondent issued the show cause notice on 12.05.2023 seeking explanation from the review petitioner within 3 days; thereafter, the respondent passed the suspension order on 16.05.2023. 9. This Court further observes that there is nothing on record, which could show that the petitioner was having no knowledge about the illegal issuance of the patta and passing of the interim order by this Hon’ble Court, and therefore, the suspension order passed by the respondent against the petitioner under Section 39 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 does not suffer from any illegality. 10. Apart from the above, this Court observes that the scope of the review is very limited and the present case does not fall under the category of such limited cases, so as to warrant review/recall of the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed by this Court in the above-numbered writ petition. 11. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the review petitioner also do not render any assistance to her case. 12. 11. The judgments cited at the Bar on behalf of the review petitioner also do not render any assistance to her case. 12. Thus, in light of the above observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to review the judgment dated 02.06.2023 passed in the above-numbered writ petition. 13. Consequently, the present review petition is dismissed.