Review not available to raise new grounds after a writ petition has been argued and decided on merits.

A review application is not maintainable merely because a later-engaged counsel wishes to raise new grounds that were not argued in the writ petition. Where the writ petition has already been fully heard and decided on the merits of the points raised, review cannot be used to secure a fresh opportunity to re-argue the matter or to cure an earlier counsel's omission. In the absence of any allegation of oversight, mistake, or error in the judgment itself, the court declined review and dismissed the application.

---

---

Issues: Whether a review application is maintainable on the ground that a later-engaged counsel wishes to raise new grounds not argued in the writ petition earlier.

Analysis: The writ petition had already been fully argued and decided on merits on the points then raised. A review is not available merely to afford the applicant a fresh opportunity to re-argue the case or to advance new grounds because another counsel considers the earlier presentation inadequate. Absent any allegation of oversight, mistake, or error in the judgment itself, the omission of a point by the earlier counsel does not justify review.

Conclusion: The review application was not maintainable on that ground and was dismissed.

---