Review jurisdiction is limited to apparent error; a conscious merits decision on Section 128 could not be reopened.

Review under Section 128 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019 was rejected because the earlier order had already considered the extendability of the 30-day period and reached a conscious conclusion on merits. The Court held that review is not available merely because another view is possible; it requires a palpable or apparent error on the face of the record. The cited Bombay High Court decision did not justify reconsideration, as the earlier order had relied on the Supreme Court's decision in arriving at its view. No ground for review was made out, and the prior order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any apparent error or sufficient ground to review the earlier order interpreting Section 128 of the Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) Scheme, 2019.

Analysis: The review request was founded on the assertion that the earlier order had wrongly treated the 30-day period under Section 128 as extendable and had not noticed a Bombay High Court decision. The Court found that the earlier order had already considered the issue in detail and had taken a conscious view on merits. A decision may be erroneous, but unless it discloses a palpable or apparent error, it does not justify review. The omission of the cited Bombay High Court decision was held to be of no consequence because the earlier order had relied on the Apex Court decision while reaching its conclusion.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the review petition was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order remained undisturbed, and the petitioner was left to pursue any other available remedy.

Ratio Decidendi: Review lies only on a demonstrable apparent error and not to reopen a conscious decision on merits merely because another view is possible.

---