Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue issues already adjudicated on merits.

Ashok Kumar Sipani held Passport No. U1497323, valid until 25 December 2029.

After an adverse police verification report disclosed his involvement in Jagatsinghpur Marine P.S. Case No. 26 dated 22 August 2010, registered under Sections 407, 408, 411, 420, 468, 471, 379 and 120-B IPC, in which charge-sheet had been submitted, the Passport Authority issued him a show-cause notice and impounded the Passport under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, by orders dated 4 November 2022 and 10 November 2022.

Sipani challenged the orders in W.P.(C) No. 30881 of 2022, which was allowed by the High Court on 23 December 2024, resulting in quashing of the impounding orders and a direction to restore the Passport.

The Union of India and another challenged that judgment before the Supreme Court in SLP(C) Diary No. 23237 of 2025, but withdrew the SLP with liberty to seek review before the High Court.

In review, they alleged, inter alia, non-consideration of the petitioner’s alleged suppression of the pending criminal case, the applicability of GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993, the distinction between Sections 6(2)(f) and 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, the availability of an appellate remedy, and the subsequent physical cancellation of the Passport.

Whether the review petitioners established an error apparent on the face of the record or any other legally recognised ground warranting review of the judgment dated 23 December 2024.

Whether the High Court had failed to appreciate the distinction between refusal or non-renewal under Section 6(2)(f) and impounding under Section 10(3)(e) of the Passports Act, 1967, including the applicability of GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993.

Whether the alleged suppression of the pending criminal case, the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 11, the issuance of a reasoned impounding order, or the physical cancellation of the Passport justified review of the earlier judgment.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, under which review is limited to discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason; review cannot operate as an appeal or permit rehearing on the merits.

Relying on Rajendra Kumar v. Ram Bhai, AIR 2003 SC 2025, the Court reiterated that review is maintainable where the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record or its continuance would result in failure of justice.

Relying also on Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Ray, AIR 1975 Orissa 64, it held that review cannot be sought merely because a matter could have been argued differently or because counsel omitted to advance a particular argument.

Section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act concerns refusal or non-renewal of a Passport in specified circumstances, whereas Section 10(3)(e) concerns impounding or revocation of an existing Passport where proceedings in respect of an alleged offence are pending before a criminal court; the Court treated the provisions as operating at different stages, while observing that pendency of a criminal case alone does not automatically require impounding.

GSR 570(E) dated 25 August 1993 and the decision in Asutosh Amrit Patnaik, W.P.(C) No. 4834 of 2022, were considered in relation to the effect of pending criminal proceedings on Passport rights.

The Court found that the principal contention concerning Sections 6(2)(f), 10(3)(e), GSR 570(E), and Asutosh Amrit Patnaik did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record because the judgment under review had expressly recognised the distinction between refusal or renewal of a Passport under Section 6(2)(f) and impounding of an existing Passport under Section 10(3)(e).

The earlier judgment had nevertheless held that, although the provisions operate at different stages, the common circumstance was the pendency of criminal proceedings, which by itself could not invariably justify impounding an existing Passport.

The review petitioners’ attempt to secure a different interpretation of GSR 570(E), or a different application of the precedent, would require reconsideration of the merits and therefore amounted to an appellate exercise unavailable in review jurisdiction.

The arguments regarding the alternative statutory remedy, the show-cause notice, and the reasoned order had already been raised or considered in the writ proceedings and could not be re-agitated.

The alleged suppression was not material for review because the pendency of the criminal case was known to and expressly considered by the Court in the original judgment.

Finally, even assuming that the physical cancellation of the Passport had not been specifically noticed, that fact concerned implementation of the operative direction and did not justify reviewing the judgment itself.

The grounds raised either had already been considered in the writ proceedings or sought to reopen the merits and obtain a different appellate view.

Accordingly, the Review Petition was dismissed, and the judgment dated 23 December 2024 in W.P.(C) No. 30881 of 2022 was left undisturbed.