JUDGMENT : G.S. Sandhawalia, CJ. CMP(M) No.324 of 2025 Keeping in view the averments made in the application, duly supported by an affidavit, delay of one year and 20 days in filing the review petition is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Review Petition No.18 of 2025 2. Review of the order dated 26.02.2024 passed in LPA No.316 of 2012 is sought by the applicant-Bank. Learned Senior Counsel has tried to make good submission on the ground that the matter was decided on account of a remand order dated 12.08.2022 having been passed on an earlier occasion by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.5251 of 2022, which had been preferred by the Welfare Association, against the order dated 03.09.2014, when the Coordinate Bench had initially decided both the appeals of the Bank and of the Association and dismissed the writ petition being not maintainable, and therefore, decided in favour of the Bank. 3. It is, thus, submitted that when the matter, as such, came up after remand, the Letters Patent Appeal which had been filed initially by the Bank, bearing No.138 of 2014, was never heard on merits and therefore, the order, which is sought to be reviewed, was not justified. 4. It has been pointed out that since the writ petition had been dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 03.09.2014 and its appeal had been allowed, there was no occasion for the Bank to prefer the SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the applicant has been condemned unheard. 5. We are not in agreement with the argument, which has been raised. Firstly, when the Apex Court remanded the matter on 12.08.2022, it was always open to the Bank to specifically get the fact incorporated in the said order that their LPA should have also been heard. The Apex Court had only restored LPA No.316 of 2012, which would be clear from paragraph-11 of the order passed by the Apex Court:- “11. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the view taken by the Division Bench, However, since the Division Bench had not dealt with the matter on merits, we restore LPA No.316 of 2012 to the file of the Division Bench and request the High Court to dispose of the same as early as possible and preferably within three months from the receipt of this order.” 6. Secondly, when the matter came up before the Division Bench, at that time, Bank was again represented by Mr. K.B. Khajuria, Advocate, appearing for respondents No.3 and 4. No application was filed at that point of time before the Coordinate Bench to point out the ambiguity saying that the matter should not be heard without the listing of the appeal of the Bank or an opportunity should be given for getting clarification of the matter from the Apex Court. 7. The present review petition has also been filed by counsel other than the one who argued the matter. The Apex Court in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Anr. Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Anr. , AIR 1997 SCC 1005 , has held that what transpires, at that point of time, would not be in the knowledge of the second counsel, therefore, a review has to be only preferred by the counsel, who had earlier appeared in the matter. Mr. Khajuria, counsel for the Bank, has not come forward to clarify exactly what transpired when the order dated 26.02.2024 was passed. The judgment reads as under:- “It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to not that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy, J., was a member, has held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was heard and decided on merits. The Review Petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained " No Objection Certificate" from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on- Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits, It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition". 2. Once the petition for review is dismissed, no application for clarification should be filed, much less with the change of the advocate-on-record. This practice of changing the advocates and filing repeated petitions should be deprecated with heavy had for purity of administration of law and salutary and healthy practice. 3. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- as it is an abuse of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from today. 3. The application is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/- as it is an abuse of the process of court in derogation of healthy practice. The amount should be paid to the Supreme Court Legal Aid Services Committee within four months from today. If the amount is not paid, it should be recovered treating this direction as decree of the Court by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to the Supreme Court Legal Service Committee. Application dismissed.” The said principle would also be applicable in the instant case. 8. Another aspect which constrains us to dismiss the review petition is that the SLP No.16819 of 2024 of the Bank against the order dated 26.02.2024 which is sought to be reviewed, was dismissed by the Apex Court on 23.09.2024 by noting as under:- “Heard Mr. Baldev Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned senior counsel for the caveator-respondent. We see absolutely no occasion to interfere with the order dated 26.02.2024 of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The present petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. However, the question of law is kept open.” 9. The Bank, thereafter, filed an application for recalling of the order dated 23.09.2024 and the leave, which was granted, as such, was only qua permission to withdraw the miscellaneous application to approach this Court in review petition. The order dated 20.12.2024 reads as under:- “This misc. application has been filed for recalling of the order dated 23.09.2024. After arguing the matter for some time, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant seeks leave to withdraw this misc. application so as to approach the High Court in a Review Petition. With liberty as above, the misc. application is disposed of as withdrawn. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.” 10. Thus, for all practical purposes, the SLP already stands dismissed and order, as such, even while clarifying or giving liberty to approach this Court, never, as such, recalls the earlier order in its entirety and the said order still stands. application is disposed of as withdrawn. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.” 10. Thus, for all practical purposes, the SLP already stands dismissed and order, as such, even while clarifying or giving liberty to approach this Court, never, as such, recalls the earlier order in its entirety and the said order still stands. If that is so, it is not within the domain of this Court, as such, now to review the order dated 26.02.2024, once the order has been upheld by the Apex Court itself on 23.09.2024. 11. The question of law, which has been kept open on 23.09.2024, is by the Apex Court regarding the issue. In such circumstances, the order, which is sought to be reviewed, does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality which would bring it within the ambit of the purview of the review jurisdiction. Thus, we have no option but to dismiss the review petition. Consequently, the present review petition stand dismissed and also the pending application(s), if any.