JUDGMENT : (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) Prayer The jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been invoked for review of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P (C) No.2911 of 2024. The said writ petition was filed challenging the debarment order dated 25.04.2024 vide Memo No.06/Examination-01-28/2023 (part-1)-1644 issued under the signature of Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi (in short, JSSC). 2. The ground to challenge the said debarment order that the same is without jurisdiction and the order of debarment has been passed without providing any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 3. It appears from the order passed by this Court dated 11.07.2024 in W.P (C) No.2911 of 2024 wherein the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had urged before this Court that there is no such condition of imposition of blacklisting for a period of three years either in the contract or in the ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ under which he has been allowed to work. It has also been contended that since there is on-compliance of the principle of natural justice, therefore, the jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. 4. It further appears from the said order dated 11.07.2024 that the learned counsel representing the JSSC has brought to the notice of this Court the condition stipulated under Clause-2.A (g) of the Notice Inviting Tender and stated that under the contract, there is specific condition stipulated indicating that the EMD shall stand forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empaneled agency for a period of three years. Therefore, a submission has been made that in such circumstances the action which has been taken against the petitioners for blacklisting for three years, no illegality has been committed while passing such order. 5. It further appears that this Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record has come to the opinion that the petitioners has suppressed the fact before this Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands. 5. It further appears that this Court after having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record has come to the opinion that the petitioners has suppressed the fact before this Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands. More so, the Court had posed a specific question to the learned counsel for the petitioner who had stated that no such clause is available under the contract, thereby, such action taken for blacklisting of the petitioners for a period of three years cannot sustain, but in view of the contract as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, it clearly specifies a condition that the EMD shall stand forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empanelled agency for a period of three years. 6. This Court considering the aforesaid came with a view that if such a condition is made available and the same is invoked for blacklisting the petitioner, this Court do not find any error in the order passed by the respondent authority and, accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed. 7. For ready reference the said order is being quoted hereinbelow: “1. Heard Mr. Pandey Neeraj Rai, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the respondents-JSSC. 2. The writ petitioners filed the instant writ petition challenging the debarment order dated 25.04.2024 bearing letter no. 06/Exam-01-28/2023 (Part-1)-1644 (Annexure 23) issued under the signature of Secretary, Jharkhand Staff Section Commission, Ranchi. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged before this Court that there is no such condition of imposition of blacklisting for a period of three years either in the contract or in the ‘Notice Inviting Tender’ under which he has been allowed to work. It has been contended that since there is non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, therefore, he has approached this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-JSSC brings to the notice of this Court the Clause 2.A (g) of the Notice Inviting Tender and has stated that the under the contract, there is specific condition stipulated that the EMD shall stand forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empanelled agency for a period of three years. Therefore, in such circumstances, the action which has been taken against the petitioner for blacklisting for three years, no illegality has been committed while passing such order. 5. Therefore, in such circumstances, the action which has been taken against the petitioner for blacklisting for three years, no illegality has been committed while passing such order. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going after across the record, it appears that the petitioner has suppressed the fact before this Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands and more so when this Court poses a question, emphatically learned counsel for the appellant says that no such clause is available under the contract thereby, action taken for black-listing of the petitioner for a period of three years cannot sustain but in view of the contract (NIT) as has been pointed by the learned counsel for the respondents it clearly specifies a condition that the EMD shall stand forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empanelled agency for a period of three years. 6. If such a condition is made available and the same is invoked for blacklisting the petitioner, we do not find any error in the order passed by the respondents-authority. 7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. 8. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.” 8. The present petition has been filed for review of the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2024, particularly, paragraph nos.5 and 6 thereof. Argument by the learned counsel for the petitioners: 9. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned senior counsel for the petitioners has stated that the law point based upon which the writ petition being W.P(C) No.2911 of 2024 was filed contained one of the grounds that the decision taken by the respondent-JSSC is without jurisdiction in addition to the issue of violation of the principle of natural justice. 10. The present review has been filed by justifying the stand which has been taken by the learned counsel who had appeared before this Court in writ petition being W.P(C) No.2911 of 2024 and in whose presence the order was passed which is sought to be reviewed. 11. The learned senior counsel for the review petitioners has submitted that it is absolutely incorrect statements made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC that there is a clause of cancellation of EMD in addition thereto of blacklisting the agency. 11. The learned senior counsel for the review petitioners has submitted that it is absolutely incorrect statements made on behalf of the learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC that there is a clause of cancellation of EMD in addition thereto of blacklisting the agency. It has been contended that the said aspect of the matter would be evident from the Service Agreement where there is no clause of blacklisting and that is the reason the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner before this Court in W.P(C) No.2911 of 2024 had made a statement that there is no clause of blacklisting, hence, it cannot be said that any wrong submission has been made which is said to be suppression of material fact. 12. The argument has been advanced that actually there is no condition to blacklist the party to a contract and in absence thereof there cannot be a decision to blacklist the party concerned. 13. The second issue has been raised with respect to the opinion formed by this Court at paragraph no.6 of the order dated 11.07.2024 passed in W.P(C) No.2911 of 2024 that since there is a power to blacklist the party concerned and in view thereof the decision to blacklist the petitioners has been taken, the same cannot said to suffer from an error. 14. Thus, it would be evident that on these two factual aspects the present review petition has been filed. Argument by the learned counsel for the respondents: 15. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC has vehemently opposed the review petition by taking the following grounds: I. It is incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that there is no provision to blacklist the agency in case of any malpractices or unfairness. II. The respondent-JSSC is having with the power in view of the contract which would be evident from the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest for expression as appended to the paper-book wherein it would be evident that in addition to such condition the agency can also be blacklisted for a period of three years. III. II. The respondent-JSSC is having with the power in view of the contract which would be evident from the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest for expression as appended to the paper-book wherein it would be evident that in addition to such condition the agency can also be blacklisted for a period of three years. III. It is also incorrect on the part of the petitioner to take the ground that the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest cannot be said to the part of the contract if the General Agreement will be taken in to consideration which is having with the two Appendix, i.e., Appendix-A and Appendix-B. IV. In Appendix-A, the condition has been provided that the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest will be treated to be part of the General Agreement. Further, another Appendix is, Appendix-B which is the Service Agreement. Therefore, the Service Agreement is inclusive in the General Agreement and since in the General Agreement the condition is thereunder as Clause-12 that the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest for tender will be the part of the contract as per the condition stipulated under Clause-2.A(g). V. The argument has been advanced that the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest is the fundamental piece of document since on the basis of the said document only the contract relationship has been established in between the JSSC and the petitioner and, as such, it cannot be accepted that the condition stipulated in the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest is not to be treated as the part of the General Agreement, rather, all the agreements which begun from the day when Notice Inviting Expression of Interest has been floated will be the part and parcel of the General Agreement and the Service Agreement. The learned counsel for the respondent-JSSC, therefore, has submitted that considering such aspect of the matter the argument was advanced by referring Clause 2.A(g) of the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest and after taking cognizance of the same, this Court had put a specific query to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, but even then no true picture has been given, rather, the argument which has been advanced is justified by making submission that there is no provision to blacklist the agency. 16. 16. The argument, therefore, has been made that, thus, it is nothing but suppression of material facts and it is settled principle of law that the writ Court being Court of equity has to approach by the litigant concerned with clean hands and by disclosure of all factual aspect in order to proper adjudication of lis. 17. It has further been submitted that this Court in the above pretext, if has taken into consideration about the suppression of material fact and, as such, it cannot be said that there is any error said to be apparent on the face of record so far as the paragraph no.5 and 6 of the order sought to be reviewed is concerned. 18. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-JSSC based upon the said ground has submitted that the present review petition, therefore, fit to be dismissed. Analysis 19. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and gone through the materials as available on the record. 20. This Court before appreciation of the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties with respect to the issue as to whether the power of review is to be exercised in the factual background of the present case needs to be referred to underlying principle to invoke the power of review. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., [ AIR 1954 SC 526 ], particularly, at paragraph-32 has observed as under: “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein. It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” 22. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India (1980) Supp. SCC 562, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: “12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib 1975 1 SCC 674 this Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ….. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.” 23. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 has observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: “20. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. 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” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.,. 20.2. 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 the 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 re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere 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) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 24. (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) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” 24. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error occurred on the face of the order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of the due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 25. The position of law is well settled, as would appear from the reference of the judgment made hereinabove that the review of the judgment can only be made if the new fact has come which could not have been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of the due diligence, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose (supra). 26. It is evident that while power of review may be inherent in the High Court to review its own order passed in a writ petition, the same has to be exercised on well-recognised and established grounds on which judicial orders are reviewed. For example, the power may be exercised on the discovery of some new and important matter or evidence which was not within the knowledge of the parties seeking review despite due exercise of diligence when the order was made. 27. Review can also be sought when the order discloses some error apparent on the face of record or on grounds analogous thereto. These are all grounds which find mention in various judicial pronouncements right from the earliest time as well as in the Rules of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code as permissible grounds of review. 28. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. 28. The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 29. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’. 30. In the very recent judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr., reported in (2024) 2 SCC 362 , the Hon’ble Apex Court while interpreting the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. the proposition has been laid down to entertain the review, as has been held at paragraph 16.1 to 16.7 which reads as under:- “16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record e justifying the court to exercise its power of review. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.—" 31. This Court is now proceeding to examine the factual aspect as to whether the factual aspect as available in the present case and the ground which has been agitated is available to exercise the power of review. 32. The admitted position herein is that the respondent-JSSC has issued a Notice Inviting Expression of Interest (EOI) on 16.11.2021 appended as Annexure-2 to the petition. The said EOI had been issued with an intention to outsource the entire process of various recruitment examinations held under the aegis, right from designing advertisement and prospectors, formatting of application forms, conducting examination and publication of merit based final result to competent and experienced external agency/agencies for the purpose of selection and empanelment from reputed institutions, companies/organisations on outsource basis. The interested agency fulfilling the eligibility criteria have been asked to obtain the EOI document on written request to JSSC, Ranchi or download it from the Commission’s website, i.e., www.jssc.nic.in. 33. The said document comprises of eight sections along with EOI acceptance letter. Under section VIII, it is evident that a condition has been inserted with respect to the issue of empanelment and de-empanelment. 33. The said document comprises of eight sections along with EOI acceptance letter. Under section VIII, it is evident that a condition has been inserted with respect to the issue of empanelment and de-empanelment. The empanelment is under Clause-5(1) and de-empanelment/termination is under Clause-2. The condition has been stipulated under Clause-2.A(g) that the EMD shall stand forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empanelled Agency for a period of 3 years, for ready reference Clause-2.A(g) is quoted here under: De-empanelment/Termination “A. By JSSC:- JSSC may de-empanel, by not less than seven (7) days written notice of termination to Agency, to be given after the occurrence of any of the events specified below, namely:- a. If the Agency commits breach of empanelment conditions or do not remedy/rectify a failure in the performance of their obligations under the contract; b. If the Agency become insolvent or bankrupt; c. If the Agency is unable to perform a material portion of the services for a period of not less than seven (7) days; or d. If JSSC, it its sole discretion, decides to decommission the panel at any stage; e. In the event of a report of unsatisfactory service from the Government; after taking into consideration any other fact as may be relevant, on a case-to-case basis; f. In the event of violation of any of the terms & conditions of empanelment by the agency; g. The EMD shall stand forfeited in addition to blacklisting of the empanelled Agency for a period of 3 years.” 34. The EOI acceptance letter which has been appended as Annexure-1 to the said EOI, which is also available in the paper-book wherein as under clause the condition no.2 a declaration is to be given by one or the other with respect to the abidance of EOI condition in its totality/its entirety. 35. For ready reference the EOI acceptance letter is referred hereinbelow: EOI ACCEPTANCE LETTER (To be given on Company Letter Head) Date : ........................ To, ....................... ..................... ...................... Subject: Acceptance of Terms & Conditions of EOI. EOI Reference No........... Name of EOI/Work ............................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................. Dear Sir, 1. We have downloaded/obtained the EOI document(s) for the above mentioned EOI/Work from the web site(s) namely: .............................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................. As per your advertisement, given in the above mentioned website. 2. To, ....................... ..................... ...................... Subject: Acceptance of Terms & Conditions of EOI. EOI Reference No........... Name of EOI/Work ............................................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................................... ....................................................................... .............................................................................................................................................................................. Dear Sir, 1. We have downloaded/obtained the EOI document(s) for the above mentioned EOI/Work from the web site(s) namely: .............................................................................................................................................................................. .............................................................................................................................................................................. As per your advertisement, given in the above mentioned website. 2. I/We hereby certify the I/We have read the entire terms and conditions of the EOI document from page no----- to---- (including all documents like annexure(s), schedule (s) etc., which form part of the contract agreement and I/We shall abide hereby by the terms/conditions/ clauses contained therein. 3. The corrigendum (s) issued from time to time by your department organisation to has also been taken into consideration, while submitting this acceptance letter. 4. I/We hereby unconditionally accept the EOI conditions of abovementioned document(s)/ corrigendum (s) in its totality/entirety. 5. I/We do hereby declare that our Firm has not been blacklisted/ debarred by any Govt. Department Public sector undertaking. 6. I/We certify that all information furnished by the our Company/Firm/Society is true & correct and in the event that any information is found to be incorrect/ untrue or found violated, then your department/organisation shall without giving any notice or reason therefore or summarily reject the bid or terminate the contract, without prejudice to any other rights or remedy including the forfeiture of the full said earnest money deposit absolutely. Yours faithfully, (Signature of the Bidder with Official Seal) 36. It is further admitted position that the petitioner has accepted EOI and in consequence thereof, it has entered into a General Agreement as also the Service Agreement. 37. The General Agreement is the part of the EOI appended as Annexure-A which contains the conditions as clause-12 to the effect that the terms and conditions as stipulated in the EOI document and enclosed herewith, shall be part of the agreement. Clause-13 stipulates that there shall be separate Service Agreement with the agency selected through limited tender for conducting the assigned examination processes either entirely or any particular part thereof. 38. Clause-13 stipulates that there shall be separate Service Agreement with the agency selected through limited tender for conducting the assigned examination processes either entirely or any particular part thereof. 38. The General Agreement also contains the condition as condition no.7 wherein it has been stipulated that in case the agency fails to perform any of the terms and conditions of the agreement or commits any breach of the contract, the JSSC will take action as per the provisions of EOI, General Agreement and Service Agreement, for ready reference the same is being quoted hereinbelow: “7. That in case the agency fails to perform any of the terms and conditions of the agreement or commits any breach of the contract, JSSC will take action as per the provisions of EOI, General Agreement and Service Agreement.” “12 The terms and conditions as stipulated in the Expression of Interest (EOI) document and enclosed herewith, shall be part of the agreement.” “13. That there shall be separate Service Agreement with the agency selected through limited tender for conducting the assigned examination processes either entirely or any particular part thereof.” 39. It is, thus, evident that the contract in between the petitioners and JSSC begun the day when the acceptance letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner in pursuant to the EOI and as per the terms and conditions contained therein as clause 2.A(g) which will govern in case the empanelled agencies are being declared to be successful for the purpose of execution of the work, i.e., Notice Inviting Expression of Interest to maintain the fairness and transparency in the process for the purpose of fulfilling the public post. 40. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of debarment dated 25.04.2024 and one of the grounds has been taken that the decision taken by the authority is without jurisdiction, which would be evident from the formulation of the law point as available in paragraph no.2 of the writ petition which is the part of the paper book. 41. The question of jurisdiction is the one of the issues based upon which the writ petition had been pleaded. 42. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner based upon the said pleadings has placed his case before this Court by taking the ground that there is no condition, in case of any error said to be committed, to blacklist the agency/petitioner. 42. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner based upon the said pleadings has placed his case before this Court by taking the ground that there is no condition, in case of any error said to be committed, to blacklist the agency/petitioner. 43. But the said fact has been disputed by the learned counsel appearing for JSSC by referring the clause-5 (2.A) (g) of section VIII of the EOI. 44. This Court thereafter put a specific question to the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, but he again has justified that there is no such condition. The learned senior counsel has, however, tried to bifurcate in between the three agreements, i.e., EOI, General Agreement and Service Agreement for the purpose of taking plea that there is no submission said to be with the intention to suppress the material fact. 45. But we are not in agreement with the said argument reason being that the very locus of the present petitioner begun the day when he had made an application on the basis of issuance of EOI and the letters of acceptance has been issued and from the said date all the conditions stipulated in EOI will be binding upon the present petitioner. 46. However, the same is for the purpose of empanelment and based upon that empanelment the agency to be selected for the purpose of Notice Inviting Expression of Interest the petitioner has been selected and thereafter General Agreement has been entered which is the part of the EOI appended as Appendix-A and the Service Agreement which is appended as Appendix-B, meaning thereby, if any empanelled agency will be selected for performance of the work, then that will be said to be in terms of the conditions contained in EOI and, hence, such agency is required to enter into the General Agreement and the Service Agreement. 47. Therefore, these three documents/instruments, i.e., EOI, General Agreement and Service Agreement will be said to be the part and parcel and cannot be segregated. Otherwise, if it will be segregated and after the work has been allotted in favour of the agency and any unfair means, if committed, then the issue will be to de-empanelment of such agency so that in future the work cannot be allotted in favour of such agency for not repeating the unfairness and malpractices in the process of fulfilling the public post. Therefore, the EOI is the fundamental document and that is the reason insertion of Clause-7 which has been referred hereinabove, wherein it has been provided that in case the terms of such agreement or the condition in breach of the contract, the JSSC will take the action as per the provisions of EOI, General Agreement and Service Agreement. 48. Likewise, condition no.12 wherein it has been provided the terms as conditions as stipulated in the Notice Inviting Expression of Interest, EOI document and enclosed herewith, shall be part of the agreement. 49. The learned counsel for the petitioner had not brought these facts into the notice of this Court, rather, it was submitted that there is no condition of blacklisting in the agreement. The said aspect of the matter had been considered by this Court as suppression of fact. 50. This Court, in view of the discussions made hereinabove, regarding the object of the three documents issued by the authority, i.e., EOI, General Agreement and Service Agreement is of the view that it was incorrect on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to take the ground that there is no condition of blacklisting as available in the agreement. 51. It further needs to be referred herein that even in the present review petition no such plea has been taken, rather the plea which had been taken earlier in the writ petition being W.P(C) No.2911 of 2024 on behalf of the petitioner has been reiterated. 52. The law is well settled that a review petition, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”, as has been settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 , for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under: 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 53. Similarly, in S. Murali Sundaram Versus Jothibai Kannan and Others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185 the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: 15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which thecontroversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: “(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. (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 by two opinions. 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 by 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.” 54. Further, in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court at para 16.5 has observed that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. It is, thus, evident from the aforesaid proposition of law that the review cannot be filed in disguise of an appeal. 55. This Court considering the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the scope to exercise of the power of review, is of the view that whatever has been argued which is not falling under the fold either of the error apparent on the face of the order or any document said to be not brought on record in spite of due diligence, hence, this Court is of the view that no ground has been taken to review the order dated 11.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P(C) No.2911 of 2024 as referred in paragraph nos.5 and 6 and, as such, these grounds stand dismissed. 56. Both the issues are answered accordingly. 57. This Court, in the entirety of the facts and circumstances, as per the discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the instant review petition lack merit. 58. In the result, the instant review petition fail and accordingly, dismissed. 59. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree.