Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant review petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , has been filed on behalf of petitioner, seeking review of order dated 14.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015. 2. Mr. Rajendra Krisha, learned counsel for the review petitioner has taken the ground that along with the instant writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition] two other writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 were tagged together. But, the writ petitions W.P. (C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 were decided on merit vide order dated 14.11.2022 however so far as writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition] is concerned, the matter has not been considered on merit since there is no finding with respect to outcome of W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 in the order dated 14.11.2022. Therefore, submission has been made that since the error is apparent on the face of the said order, hence, so far writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 is concerned, is required to be reviewed so that the issue on merit in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 be decided. 3. Mr. Ankit Vishal, learned counsel for the respondents- SAIL has submitted the issue which fell for consideration in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition] has rendered infructuous due to lapse of time, as such the prayer made therein has lost its force. 4. Upon this, learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that argument made by the respondents has merit but the instant review petition has been filed on the ground that there is no consideration of the matter on merit so far as the outcome of W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 is concerned. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order 14.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition] and two other writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013. 6. 5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the order 14.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition] and two other writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013. 6. This Court, before considering the ground available for review of order dated 14.11.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition], needs to refer herein the factual backgrounds of the case. 7. It is evident that three writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 [the subject matter of present review petition] and two other writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 were tagged together for analogous hearing. For ready reference, the factual aspect involved in all the three writ petitions are referred as under: Factual aspect involved in W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013: 8. The Bokaro Steel Plant came up with limited tender notice for supply of different welding rectifier and welding power sources. The petitioner is alleged to be the registered vendor of management of Bokaro Steel Plant. The petitioner quoted the price and was declared the lowest bidder and thereby purchase order(s) was issued in his favour. It is stated that the petitioner has supplied successfully all the materials but all of a sudden vide letter dated 26.10.2013 issued under the seal and signature of Manager, Purchase notice was issued whereby it has been stated that since the petitioner has charged and executed the purchase order at a very high price compared to the prevailing market price which caused financial loss to the Bokaro Steel Plant and thereby granted 15 days’ time to deposit the differential amount to the tune of Rs. 52,21,000/-. After issuance of said letter/notice, the petitioner represented before the authority concerned by submitting representation but it did not evoke any response as such the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013. Factual aspect involved in W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 9. The Bokaro Steel Plant came up with Bid Invitation/Purchase Enquiry, whereupon the petitioner, after observing all formalities, was allotted purchase orders. Factual aspect involved in W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 9. The Bokaro Steel Plant came up with Bid Invitation/Purchase Enquiry, whereupon the petitioner, after observing all formalities, was allotted purchase orders. But all of a sudden vide letter dated 26.10.2013 issued under the seal and signature of Manager, Purchase issued notice whereby it has been stated that since the petitioner has charged and executed the purchase order at a very high price compared to the prevailing market price which caused financial loss to the Bokaro Steel Plant and thereby granted 15 days’ time to deposit the differential amount to the tune of Rs. 50,97,423/-. After issuance of said letter/notice, the petitioner represented before the authority concerned by submitting representation but it did not evoke any response as such the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 7726 of 2013. Factual aspect involved in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 10. The writ petitioner-Aero Sales, had earlier filed one writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013, wherein it has challenged letter dated 26.10.2013 whereby it has been stated that since the petitioner has charged and executed the purchase order at a very high price compared to the prevailing market price which caused financial loss to the Bokaro Steel Plant and thereby granted 15 days’ time to deposit the differential amount to the tune of Rs 52,21,000/-. After issuance of said letter, the petitioner represented before the authority concerned by submitting representation but it instead of passing any order on the said representation the respondents-authority passed order dated 11 th /13 th April, 2015 whereby it is alleged that the petitioner is involved in some unethical practices in the business and in future there will be no business with the petitioner and further the vendor number of the petitioner has been blocked for any future transaction. 11. Thus, it is evident from the factual aspect involved in these writ petitions that W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 have been filed challenging the decision as contained in letter no.Ref.P37/RCV/AS/-04 (W.P.(C) No.7073/2013) and letter no.Ref.P37/RCV/TWS/-08 (W.P.(C) No.7726/2013) dated 26.10.2013 respectively whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners have been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.52,21,000/- and Rs.50,97,423/- respectively, failing which, the same were directed to be deducted from the pending bills. 12. 12. However, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1705 of 2015 has been filed for quashing of the order dated 11th/13th April, 2015 by which the petitioner’s firm has been suspended and blocked in the SAP system without serving any notice. 13. Thus, it is evident that factual aspect as also the prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 were different to that of prayer made in W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015. 14. However, all the three writ petitions, which were having different subject matter, were heard together and disposed of vide order dated 14.11.2022. 15. The writ Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, has come out with the finding from paragraph 15 onwards. At paragraph 15, the writ Court has observed that this Court after taking into consideration the fact in entirety as also discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the decision taken by the authority as contained in communication dated 26.10.2013 regarding recovery of an amount of Rs.52,21,000/- (W.P.(C) No.7073/2013) and Rs.50,97,423/- (W.P.(C) No.7726/2013) requires fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. The writ Court, further at paragraph 16 has remitted the matter before the respondent no.3-General Manager, Purchase to take appropriate decision within stipulated period of time. For ready reference, paragraph 15 and 16 of the judgment is quoted as under: “15. This Court after taking into consideration the fact in entirety as also discussion made hereinabove, is of the view that the decision taken by the 7 authority as contained in communication dated 26.10.2013 regarding recovery of an amount of Rs.52,21,000/- (W.P.(C) No.7073/2013) and Rs.50,97,423/- (W.P.(C) No.7726/2013) requires fresh consideration after providing an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. 16. Accordingly, the matter is remitted before the respondent no.3- General Manager, Purchase to take appropriate decision.” 16. Thus, from the finding so arrived at by the writ Court onwards paragraph 15, it is evident that there is no finding with respect to W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 however finding has been given so far W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2015, as indicated hereinabove. 17. It is, in this context, the present review petition has been filed. 18. 17. It is, in this context, the present review petition has been filed. 18. 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 refer the underlying principle to invoke the power of review. 19. 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. 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.” 20. Likewise, in the case of Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon Vrs. Union of India (1980) Supp. SCC 562 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has 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. 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.” 21. 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. 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. 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.” 22. It is evident from the aforesaid judgments that the power of review is to be exercised if there is any error apparent on the face of order or the factual aspect could not have been brought to the notice of this Court in spite of due diligence having been taken in the matter of making available the factual aspect of the relevant documents. 23. 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 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). 24. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the power of review can be exercised only - (i) if there is any error apparent on the face of the order; or (ii) the fact which could not have been brought to the notice of the court in spite of the due diligence having been taken by the concerned party. 25. It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the power of review can be exercised only - (i) if there is any error apparent on the face of the order; or (ii) the fact which could not have been brought to the notice of the court in spite of the due diligence having been taken by the concerned party. 25. Herein, the second ground i.e., ‘the fact which could not have been brought to the notice of the court in spite of the due diligence having been taken by the concerned party’, is not available herein rather the first ground i.e., error apparent on the face of order is required to be considered for the reason that when a litigation has been agitated by the party concerned, then it is the bounden duty of the Court concerned to decide the issue, meaning thereby there must be consideration of the matter on merit irrespective of its result. If such consideration is not there then it would be said to be error apparent on the face of order. 26. It is also equally settled that the High Court is the Court of record and in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India High Court is having the inherent jurisdiction to rectify its own wrong i.e., the High Court is having power to review for the purpose of rectifying if any error has crept up which is available on face of order. 27. Reference, in this regard is made to the judgment rendered in the case of “Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs. Aibam Pishak Sharma & Ors.”, reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , wherein the the Hon?ble Supreme Court has held at paragraph 3 as under: “ 3. ……… It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 28. The writ petition, W.P. (C) No. 1705 of 2015 has been filed along with two other writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 7073 of 2013 and W.P.(C) No. 7726 of 2013 but it is apparent from the final order which has been passed on 14.11.2022 is with respect to all the writ petitions showing W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2013 also to be disposed of. 29. This Court has gone through order dated 14.11.2022 passed in the batch of writ petitions in entirety and found therefrom that there is no consideration of issue on merit so far W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 is concerned at the concluding paragraph i.e., from paragraph 15 onwards, however, reference of W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 is there at paragraph 2 as also at paragraph 7. 30. This Court, in the backdrop of the aforesaid fact, is of the view that non-consideration of the lis with respect to W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 by not arriving at with final decision so far as it relates to aforesaid writ petition is concerned, is considered to be error apparent on the face of order. 31. Argument has been advanced on merit of the issue. 31. Argument has been advanced on merit of the issue. But the question is that when the instant review petition has been filed for the purpose of its consideration on merit then unless the order to the extent pertains to W.P. (C) No. 1705 of 2015 can only be considered if the said writ petition will be revived and that can only be done by exercising the power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while exercising the power of judicial review so as to consider the contention of both the parties on merit. 32. This Court, in view of the aforesaid, is of the view that the argument, which is on merit but there is no averment to the effect that the issue pertains to W.P.(C) No. 1705 of 2015 is at all has been considered by this Court, which is the sole ground for filing the instant review petition. 33. This Court, in view of the aforesaid discussion, is of the considered view that this case is coming under the fold power of judicial review and as such order dated 14th November, 2022 so far it relates to W.P. (C) No. 1705 of 2015 is concerned, needs to be recalled and accordingly, the same is being recalled. 34. Accordingly, the instant review petition stands allowed. The writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 1705 of 2015 is revived for its consideration.