Rectification cannot become review: only patent errors may be corrected, not a fresh reconsideration of merits.

Rectification proceedings cannot be used to seek a review of an earlier order or to re-appreciate evidence and merits; only patent, manifest and self-evident errors may be corrected. The Tribunal held that the final order was not vitiated merely because every pleading and submission was not reproduced in detail, since the order had already considered the appellants' arguments and remanded the matter for de novo decision in line with Supreme Court law. As the grounds in the miscellaneous application required reconsideration of facts and law, the request for rectification was held not maintainable and the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the miscellaneous application seeking rectification of the final order could be entertained on the ground that certain facts, pleadings and submissions were not specifically dealt with, or whether the request amounted to an impermissible review of the earlier decision.

Analysis: The Tribunal noted that the earlier final order had already considered the appellants' arguments and had set aside the impugned orders while remanding the matter for de novo decision in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. It held that an order is not vitiated merely because every submission is not reproduced in detail, since the decision reflects the cumulative effect of the arguments. The Tribunal further held that, in the garb of rectification, it could not re-appreciate evidence or revisit the merits, as such an exercise would amount to review. Only patent, manifest and self-evident errors can be corrected in rectification proceedings, and the grounds urged in the application required reconsideration of facts and law.

Conclusion: The request for rectification was not maintainable and the miscellaneous application was dismissed.

---