Limited review jurisdiction bars reappraisal where no apparent error is shown and the earlier permit ruling stands.

Review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to reargue the case or act as an appellate forum. The Madras HC noted that the earlier judgment had already treated grant of permit to another applicant as rejection of the remaining applications, including the petitioner's, and had applied the protective umbrella under Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 equally to the petitioner. The complaint that a certified copy was not issued did not change the legal position, because the rejection was treated as appealable and the available remedy was not pursued. No error apparent on the face of the record or other infirmity was shown, so review was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review application disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record warranting reconsideration of the earlier judgment dismissing the writ petition.

Analysis: Review is a limited jurisdiction and cannot be used as an appellate forum to reappreciate the entire case. The earlier judgment had already held that the grant of permit in favour of another applicant operated as a rejection of the remaining applications, including the petitioner's, and that the reasoning based on the protective umbrella under Section 10 of Tamil Nadu Act 41 of 1992 applied equally to the petitioner. The petitioner's grievance that a certified copy had not been issued did not alter the legal position, since the earlier order had treated the rejection as appealable and the petitioner had not pursued the available remedy. No glaring error or infirmity was shown in the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on merits and no ground for interference was made out; the request for review was rejected.

---