Review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue issues or correct an allegedly erroneous interpretation of law.

The applicants sought review of the order dated 3 September 2026 by which their writ petition, WPA 18458 of 2026, had been dismissed.

The writ petition had been filed before issuance of the tender-cum-e-auction notice dated 8 August 2026 concerning settlement of a municipal ferry ghat.

The applicants contended that the Court had failed to consider Rule 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, 1991, which, according to them, required preference to be given to a local boatmen’s cooperative society or a partnership comprising local boatmen and hereditary patni.

They further argued that the Municipality had failed to consider the constitutional objective under Article 46 and had not ascertained whether more than one local boatmen’s cooperative society existed before issuing the auction notice.

The Municipality and the State opposed the review, submitting that the application sought to reargue matters already considered and did not satisfy the recognised grounds for review.

Whether the writ Court possessed jurisdiction to review its order under Article 226 notwithstanding the non-direct applicability of Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?

Whether the alleged failure to consider the purpose and object of Rule 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, 1991, Article 46 of the Constitution, and the Municipality’s failure to identify eligible local cooperative societies constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review?

Whether the review application was an impermissible attempt to appeal against or reargue the reasoning adopted in the original writ order?

The Court held that although, by virtue of the Explanation to Section 141 CPC, Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are not directly applicable to proceedings under Article 226, a writ Court retains an inherent power to review its order to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct a gross or palpable error.

Review is ordinarily permissible on three grounds: discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

An error apparent must be self-evident and patent; an error requiring elaborate reasoning or a long-drawn argument is ordinarily not reviewable.

Review cannot be used as an appeal or to reopen issues already raised and considered.

The Court also considered the applicants’ reliance on Rule 281(iii) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, 1991, Article 46 of the Constitution, and the decisions in Yashwant Sinha v. Central Bureau of Investigation, (2020) 2 SCC 338, and M.P. Oil Extraction v. State of M.P., AIR 1998 SC 145.

The Court accepted that it possessed inherent review jurisdiction under Article 226, but found that the applicants had not established a patent or self-evident error in the earlier order.

The principal complaint—that the Court had failed to examine the purpose of Rule 281(iii), the relevance of Article 46, and the Municipality’s obligation to identify eligible cooperative societies—did not demonstrate an error apparent on the record.

In the original writ proceedings, the Court had proceeded on the basis that the bid value had been determined by an expert body and that the writ Court could not sit in appeal over that determination.

Consequently, there had been no occasion in the original judgment to examine what considerations the Municipality ought to have applied while fixing the bid value.

The applicants’ contentions therefore sought a fresh examination of the merits and an enlargement of the original inquiry, rather than correction of a manifest error.

The precedents cited by them, though binding in principle, did not assist in establishing a ground for review.

The alleged non-consideration of Rule 281(iii), Article 46, and the Municipality’s process in determining eligible local cooperative societies did not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record; nor could the review application be used to reargue the merits of the original writ petition.

Accordingly, RVW 224 of 2026 along with the connected CAN 1 of 2026 was dismissed without costs.

Parties were permitted to act on the basis of the downloaded server copy, and certified copies were directed to be supplied upon compliance with formalities.