Review jurisdiction cannot rest on a speculative future change in precedent; review petition rejected

Review jurisdiction is confined to recognised grounds and cannot be used to reopen an earlier order merely because a party expects a possible future change in precedent. The pending modification application before the Supreme Court did not, by itself, furnish a permissible basis to disturb the earlier decision setting aside the show-cause notice. As no satisfactory ground for review was shown, the review petition was held not maintainable and rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any ground warranting review of the earlier order setting aside the show-cause notice and whether a pending modification application before the Supreme Court justified reopening the matter.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to recognised grounds and cannot be invoked merely because a party expects a future change in the legal position. The Court found that the ground pressed by the review petitioner was not satisfactory. The pendency of a modification application in another matter did not, by itself, establish any basis to disturb the earlier decision.

Conclusion: The review petition was not maintainable on the ground urged and was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A review cannot be entertained on the basis of a speculative or contingent future modification of precedent when no permissible ground for review is otherwise shown.

---