Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting apparent error, not rearguing settled issues over market fee liability.

Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen issues already decided or to substitute one possible view for another; it is confined to correcting a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The earlier proceedings had already determined the substantive liability to market fee and the effect of the Supreme Court's prospective ruling, and no legal infirmity or apparent error was shown. The High Court was therefore justified in refusing to interfere with the direction that the deposited amount be paid to the Market Committee, and the challenge to the dismissal of review failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the review petition against the order directing payment of the deposited amount to the Market Committee, and whether any error apparent on the face of the record justified review.

Analysis: The earlier decision had already determined the substantive controversy regarding liability to market fee and the effect of the Supreme Court's prospective ruling. The review could not be used to re-argue matters that had been considered and rejected in the original proceedings. Review jurisdiction is confined to correcting a mistake apparent on the face of the record and does not permit a rehearing on two possible views of the same issue. The High Court had rightly held that the deposited amount was in lieu of market fee for the benefit of the Market Committee and that no apparent error or legal infirmity was shown to warrant interference.

Conclusion: The review petition was correctly dismissed, and the appeal against that dismissal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Review cannot be invoked to re-open issues already decided or to substitute one possible view for another; it lies only where a clear error apparent on the face of the record is shown.

---