Limited review jurisdiction bars reopening cost recovery order absent error apparent on the face of the record.

Review jurisdiction is confined to discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another analogous sufficient reason, and cannot be used to reargue conclusions already reached. On that basis, the cost direction against the Managing Director of JBVNL was not shown to suffer from any patent error and was not liable to be recalled. The record supported the direction, including the Managing Director's role in the decision-making process and the principle that the public exchequer should not bear the burden of unlawful retention of money. The same controversy had already been examined in earlier review proceedings and carried to the Supreme Court, which did not interfere.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petition disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record or any ground warranting recall of the direction to recover costs from the Managing Director of JBVNL.

Analysis: The power of review is limited and can be exercised only for discovery of new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds. A review cannot be used to reopen conclusions already reached, reargue the matter, or substitute a possible alternative view. The impugned cost direction was founded on the record, including the role of the Managing Director in the decision-making process and the principle that the public exchequer should not bear the burden of unlawful retention of money. The Court also noted that the same controversy had already been considered in the earlier review proceedings and carried before the Supreme Court, which did not interfere.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out. The direction recovering costs from the Managing Director was not shown to suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and was not liable to be recalled.

---