Second review application not maintainable; challenge to refusal of review must be pursued through writ jurisdiction instead.

A second review application was not maintainable after the first review application was not entertained. The proper remedy in that situation was to challenge the refusal through writ jurisdiction rather than to file another review before the Tribunal. The Rajasthan HC therefore treated the second review as impermissible and indicated writ proceedings as the correct course. The matter was disposed of with liberty to the Revenue to pursue writ proceedings within the stipulated time.

---

---

Issues: Whether a second review application was maintainable against the Tribunal's order, and whether the appropriate remedy lay in a writ petition.

Analysis: The only substantive question answered was the maintainability of the second review application. The Court held that once the first review application was not entertained, the proper course was to challenge that decision by writ petition and not by filing a second review application.

Conclusion: The second review application was held to be not maintainable, and the remedy indicated was a writ petition.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the Revenue to pursue writ proceedings within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: A second review application is not maintainable where the earlier review has not been entertained, and the proper remedy is to invoke writ jurisdiction.

---