Review jurisdiction cannot reopen common judgment findings or convert a discrimination challenge into an appeal substitute.

Review jurisdiction was unavailable where a common judgment had already finally determined the connected writ appeals and unchallenged adverse findings in remaining appeals continued to operate. The court held that review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reopen binding findings or bypass the effect of res judicata. The plea of discrimination was already considered in the earlier judgment, and any challenge to the correctness of that reasoning was a matter for appeal, not review. The review petitions were therefore not maintainable and were liable to be rejected.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review petitions were maintainable in view of the common judgment in connected appeals and the unchallenged findings in the remaining appeals; (ii) whether any error apparent on the face of the record was shown on the ground that the plea of discrimination had not been considered so as to justify review.

Issue (i): whether the review petitions were maintainable in view of the common judgment in connected appeals and the unchallenged findings in the remaining appeals

Analysis: The limited scope of review is confined to error apparent on the face of the record. The common judgment in the connected writ appeals had finally determined the issues arising from the import restrictions, and the adverse findings in the other connected appeals remained unchallenged. In such a situation, the principle of res judicata applies, and a party cannot seek review of only some parts of a common decision while leaving other binding portions intact.

Conclusion: The review petitions were not maintainable and this issue was answered against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether any error apparent on the face of the record was shown on the ground that the plea of discrimination had not been considered so as to justify review

Analysis: The discrimination plea was already considered in the common judgment. The challenge based on unequal treatment of boric acid vis-a -vis other chemicals, and the alleged disparity between importers and local manufacturers, had been dealt with in the earlier decision, though the matter was left open for appropriate proceedings. A contention that the reasoning or treatment adopted in that judgment was incorrect could not be converted into a review ground, since review is not a substitute for appeal.

Conclusion: No error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and this issue was answered against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The review jurisdiction was not available to reopen matters already considered in the common judgment, and the petitions were liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to circumvent final findings in a common judgment or to reopen issues that were already considered, especially where unchallenged connected findings continue to operate.

---