Review jurisdiction applied where the earlier judgment relied on a withdrawn communication, leading to recall and restoration of appeals.

A prior judgment dismissing the appeals was found to rest on a communication that had already been withdrawn by the competent authority, so the factual foundation of that decision no longer existed. That was treated as an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review jurisdiction. The review petitions were allowed, the earlier judgment was recalled, and the connected appeals were restored to their original numbers.

---

---

Issues: Whether the earlier judgment dismissing the appeals was liable to be reviewed and recalled on the ground that it proceeded on a letter which had already been withdrawn and was not in existence.

Analysis: The review record showed that the communication relied upon in the earlier decision had been withdrawn by the competent authority. Since the earlier judgment had proceeded on the basis of that withdrawn communication, the foundation of the decision was undermined. The Court treated this as an error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The review petitions were allowed, the earlier judgment was recalled, and the connected appeals were restored to their original numbers.

---