Review jurisdiction cannot reopen a consent-based writ order absent error apparent on the face of the record.

Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. A writ order passed in the presence of both sides, and based on the parties' agreement that the issue was covered by an earlier coordinate Bench decision, could not be reopened merely because the review applicant asserted that some factual contentions and authorities were not considered. No patent mistake or manifest error was shown. The disputed refund rejection was also treated as an appealable order, and the earlier order preserved the statutory appellate remedy with consequential reliefs. The review petition therefore failed and the earlier order remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any ground under review jurisdiction to recall the earlier order, including any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason.

Analysis: Review lies only within the narrow confines of the statutory grounds for review, namely discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The earlier writ order had been passed in the presence of both sides and recorded agreement that the issue was already covered by an earlier coordinate Bench decision. The challenge in review was founded on an alleged failure to consider the petitioner's factual contentions and authorities, but no patent mistake or manifest error on the face of the record was shown. The disputed refund rejection was also treated as an appealable order, and the earlier order had already protected the statutory appellate remedy with consequential reliefs.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out and the review petition was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The earlier order was left undisturbed, and the petitioner obtained no relief in review proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reopen a consent-based order absent a demonstrable error apparent on the face of the record or any statutorily recognised ground for review.

---