1 RA-198-26.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO.198 OF 2026 ABHISHEK OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL AND OTHERS VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … Advocate for Applicants : Mr. Anand P. Bhandari AGP for Respondents No.1 to 4 : Mr. R. S. Wani … CORAM : KISHORE C. SANT AND SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATE : 05-10-2026 PER COURT:- 1. The applicants seek a review of the order dated 18.06.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 519 of 2020. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants. 3. Having considered the contentions put forth by the learned counsel, we have carefully perused the order under review. 4. It is well-settled law that review proceedings have a very limited scope. A party seeking review cannot re-canvass the original case as if it were a fresh writ petition, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650. 5. The review jurisdiction is strictly confined to correcting an error apparent on the face of the record that leads to manifest injustice. This position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex 2026:BHC-AUG:46582-DB 2 RA-198-26.odt Court in the case of State of Telangana Vs. Mohammad Abdul Karim, (2024) 6 SCC 461. 6. An error apparent on the face of the record must be self- evident. It should strike the court immediately upon looking at the record, without requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning or dealing with points where two opinions are conceivably possible. 7. The learned counsel for the applicants has merely attempted to re-agitate and re-argue the grounds already raised in the writ petition. It is trite law that a party cannot use a review application to re-argue questions that have already been addressed and decided. 8. When confronted with these legal principles, the learned counsel could not demonstrate any error much less an error of law apparent on the face of the record. 9. In view of the settled legal position, we find no error in the order under review. 10. Resultantly, the review application is devoid of merit and stands dismissed. However, no order as to costs. (SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, J.) (KISHORE C. SANT, J.) rrd