SHETHNA, J. - (1.) BY way of this review application, the petitioner, who was Sarpanch, has prayed that the order dated 19. 1. 2000 passed in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3704/97 (Annex. 4) be recalled. It is a brief order which I would like to reproduce, which is as under:- " None present for the petitioner. BY efflux of time and the subsequent events taking place in the matter, this petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, it is disposed as having become infructuous. "
(2.) THE grounds on which review of my order dated 19. 1. 2000 is sought by the petitioners in this application are also required to be reproduced which are as under:- 1. That this case was not listed on regular cause list on 19. 1. 2000. It now appears that the same was came to be listed in the Supplementary Cause List of 19. 1. 2000 which did not come to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner. 2. That the case was disposed of presumably under the impression that action for conducting fresh elections has since been intimated. Nothing turns on the order dated 19. 9. 1997 (Annexure 4 ). 3. That, however, the fact is that the impugned order results in rendering the petitioner ineligible to seek election in terms of Section 38 (3) of Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Act, 1994. 4. In view of the above it is respectfully prayed that the order dated 19. 1. 2000 (Ann. 4) may kindly be recalled and the case may kindly be ordered to be restored to its original number. " It is well settled law that the review is permissible only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record while passing the order or there is a typographical/clerical mistake. Otherwise the order cannot be reviewed. Before deciding the question whether the review is permissible or not and any error was committed while passing the order on 19. 1. 2000, few important facts are required to be stated which are as under:- (I) By a notice dated 20. 11. 85, the petitioner was called upon to explain two charges by the Avar Sachiv (Enquiry) to show cause as to why those two charges should not be enquired into against him. Reply dated 28. 11. 85 was submitted by the petitioner. After considering the same, the S. D. O. , Deedwana was appointed as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges levelled against him. Later on by an order dated 6. 12. 86, the petitioner was suspended from the post of Sarpanch by Avar Sachiv (Enquiry) against which the petitioner filed writ petition No. 2839/86 before this Court and the same was stayed on 18. 12. 86. (II) In May, 1987, the State Government appointed Additional Collector, Nagaur as the enquiry officer in place of S. D. O. , Deedwana who ultimately submitted his report on 16. 12. 94 against the petitioner. Thereupon notice dated 15. 2. 95 was issued along with the enquiry report to the petitioner and he was asked to submit his reply within 15 days. He submitted his reply on 15. 3. 95. (III) By an order dated 22. 2. 95, the State Government held that the charges levelled against the petitioner are found to be proved and he was found guilty of mis-conduct in discharge of his duties as Sarpanch (Annex. 16 ). Thus, the petitioner was disqualified for a period of 5 years from the date of recording of finding against him. (IV) An order dated 22. 2. 95 was earlier challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of S. B. C. Writ Petition No. 3338/95 which was dismissed summarily by learned Single Judge of this Court on 9. 10. 95 by holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been fully substantiated and he has been found guilty of the mis-conduct in the discharge of his duties. Thus, the finding of fact has been recorded against him. (V) Against the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the petitioner preferred a D. B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 747/95 before the Division Bench of this Court which was disposed of on 10. 9. 96 (Annex. 1 ). It may be stated that the Division Bench of this Court was also conscious of the fact that whether it merely amount to an error of judgment or it was consciously so done depends upon the question of appreciation of facts. The Division Bench of this Court was also conscious about its powers in writ jurisdiction and to re-appreciate the evidence for which it has also considered the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Tamil Nadu and another vs. S. Subramaniam reported in AIR 1996, S. C. 1232 (1 ). It is also clear from the judgment of the Division Bench that the order dated 22. 9. 95 (Annex. 16) was not quashed or set aside by the Division Bench nor the Division Bench has set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 22. 9. 95 (Annex. 16 ). It appears from the said judgment at Annex. 1 that the Division Bench has only left the matter for re-consideration by the State Government as to whether the overt act as allegedly resorted to by the petitioner was merely an error of judgment or it did really amount to disgraceful conduct and for that purpose, they left it to the highest authority of the State Government i. e. Additional Secretary for re-appreciation. (VI) In pursuance of the directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court as per the order at Annex. 1, the notice dated 4. 1. 97 (Annex. 2) was issued by the State Government to the petitioner which was replied to by the petitioner by his reply dated 16. 1. 97 (Annex. 3 ). After hearing the petitioner and considering the reply submitted by him, detailed remarks were sought from the District Collector who submitted his remarks against the petitioner and accordingly, it was found by the State Government that the charges levelled against him were wholly found proved and accordingly, by the impugned order dated 19. 9. 97 (Annex. 4) passed in exercise of its powers under Section 39 (2) of the Act, the seat of Sarpanch was declared vacant. This was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of the main writ petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3704/97, wherein while issuing notice to the respondents, the operation of the impugned order (Annex. 4) was stayed by this Court on 29. 9. 97. (VII) The aforesaid writ petition No. 3704/97 was placed before me on 19. 1. 2000 in supplementary cause list, however, no one was present on behalf of the petitioner and as the Panchayat elections were already declared, therefore, I was of the opinion that by efflux of time and subsequent events taking place in the matter, this petition has become infructuous, therefore, I dismissed the same as having become infructuous by my order dated 19. 1. 2000 by recording that none was present for the petitioner. This order is sought to be reviewed by way of this review application on the grounds which are already mentioned earlier in the order. Learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mridul for the petitioner vehemently submitted that this Court was wrong in disposing of the matter as infructuous because though the Panchayat elections were already declared by the State Government but the resultant effect of the impugned order at Annex. 4 of the main petition dated 19. 9. 97 rendering the petitioner ineligible for 5 years to contest election under Section 38 (3) of the Act was not at all considered by this Court. Thus, therefore, he submitted that there was an error apparent on the face of the record while passing the order of this Court disposing of the main writ petition on 19. 1. 2000 as having become infructuous and, therefore, the same should be recalled and the petition be heard on merits and then it may be decided. He also submitted that before passing the order on 19. 1. 2000 in the main writ petition, the petitioner had already filled up the form as Panch but now in the forthcoming elections of Pradhan which he proposes to contest, he will not be able to contest because of the consequential effect of the impugned order at Annex. 4. However, learned AAG Mr. Jangid for the respondents and learned counsel Mr. Choudhary for the intervenor with equal vehemence submitted that looking to the challenge made by the petitioner in the petition, this Court rightly disposed of the petition as having become infructuous by efflux of time and subsequent events taking place in the matter namely that the declaration of the Panchayat Elections.
(3.) THEY rightly submitted that looking to the prayer made in the petition and the challenge to the impugned order at Annex. 4, there was no option for this Court but to dispose of the writ petition as having become infructuous by efflux of time and subsequent events taking place in the matter and it cannot be said that there was any error much less error apparent on the face of the record committed by this Court while passing the order dated 19. 1. 2000 whereby the main writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous. The law on this point is very well settled by catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court. The review of order is permissible only where there is a clerical/typing error or an error apparent on the face of the record is committed while passing the order. I have earlier narrated the entire background of the case as well as averments made in this review application seeking review of my order which would clearly show that while disposing of the writ petition as having become infructuous by efflux of time and subsequent events taking place in the matter. I have not committed any error much less error apparent on the face of the record which is required to be corrected by this Court in this application. Hence this review application has to be rejected. Before parting, I may state that I have also heard learned Sr. Advocate Mr. Mridul for the petitioner, learned counsel Mr. Choudhary for the intervenor and learned AAG Mr. Jangid for the respondents on the merits of the case so that no injustice is done to the petitioner. ;