Review jurisdiction limited to patent errors; unexplained delay and filing defects justified rejection of the petitions.

Review jurisdiction is confined to cases showing a patent error apparent on the face of the record, and unexplained delay can independently justify rejection of a review petition. The Supreme Court noted that the review petitions were filed with uncured defects and substantial delay that was not satisfactorily explained, and found no error apparent or other ground warranting reconsideration of the impugned order. The petitions were therefore held to be not maintainable and were rejected as lacking merit.

---

---

Issues: Whether the review petitions deserved dismissal for delay and whether any error apparent on the face of the record justified reconsideration of the impugned order.

Analysis: The review petitions suffered from uncured filing defects and substantial delay, and the delay was not satisfactorily explained. On merits, the record disclosed no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the challenged order.

Conclusion: The review petitions were rightly held to be not maintainable on account of delay and were also found to lack merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction can be exercised only where there is a patent error apparent on the face of the record, and unexplained delay provides an additional ground for dismissal.

---