July 29, 2026 Sl. No.10 Court No.1 s.biswas RVW 123 of 2026 with CAN 1 of 2026 in MAT 1390 of 2025 Nilmoni Banerjee vs. The State of West Bengal and others Mr. Sourav Prasanna Mukherjee ... for the petitioner Mr. Sahasrangshu Bhattacharya Ms. Mary Datta Mr. Suchindram Bhattacharya ... for the State Supplementary affidavit, as filed on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record. Aggrieved by the order dated 29th January, 2026 passed in MAT 1390 of 2025, the present memorandum of review, along with an application in connection therewith, has been filed by the writ petitioner/appellant/petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “the petitioner”). By the said order dated 29th January, 2026, the appeal being MAT 1390 of 2025, preferred against the order dated 12th August, 2025 passed in WPA 14784 of 2025, was dismissed. Succinctly stated, the facts leading to filing of the review petition are that the petitioner's father happened to be a founder member of the Managing Committee of Lodna Mankhamar Vivekananda Vidyamandir High School, Bankura (hereinafter referred to as the "said school"). Initially, the said school functioned as a recognised unaided school. Accordingly, the Managing Committee of the said school was governed by the provisions of the Management of Recognized Non-Government 2 Institutions (Aided and Unaided) Rules, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1969"). The petitioner's father was included in the Managing Committee under the founder category in terms of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1969. Upon the demise of his father, the petitioner also continued to be a member of the Managing Committee in the same capacity. Subsequently, the school was brought under the Government-sponsored category. Thereafter, the affairs of the Managing Committee came to be governed by the provisions of the Rules of Management of Sponsored Institutions (Secondary), 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules of 1972"), and the petitioner continued as a member of the Managing Committee in the same capacity till 2019. In 2025, when a new Managing Committee was constituted, the petitioner was excluded. Aggrieved by his exclusion from the Managing Committee, he preferred a writ petition, being WPA 14784 of 2025. By an order dated 12th August, 2025, the said writ petition was dismissed. Challenging the order dated 12th August, 2025, an intra-court appeal, being MAT 1390 of 2025, was preferred. However, as noted earlier, by the order dated 29th January, 2026, the said appeal was dismissed. We have been informed that, challenging the order dated 29th January, 2026, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition, being Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 11542 of 2026, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court declined to entertain the said Special Leave Petition and dismissed the same. Liberty was, however, granted to the petitioner to file a review petition before this Court, and hence the present review application. 3 Mr. Mukherjee, learned Advocate appearing for the review petitioner, submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. He submits that, in the order dated 29th January, 2026, it has been observed that Rule 5(ii) of the Rules of 1972 does not recognize any right of the son of a founder of a school to be included as a member of the Managing Committee. He further submits that Rule 5(iv) of the Rules of 1972 empowers the Director of School Education to nominate a person interested in education. According to him, since the petitioner's father gifted the property for setting up the school, the petitioner should have been recognized as a person interested in education and nominated accordingly. He further submits that, on an earlier occasion, the District Inspector of Schools (Secondary Education), Bankura, by a letter dated 30th April, 2014 addressed to the Deputy Secretary, West Bengal Board of Secondary Education, had recommended the inclusion of the petitioner in the Managing Committee under the founder category. He submits that this aspect had been overlooked by this Court and, therefore, justifies the review and/or reconsideration of the order. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State respondents, vehemently opposes the contentions advanced by Mr. Mukherjee. He submits that such contentions were never urged when the writ petition or the appeal was heard. He further submits that, by filing the present review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to urge a new point, nor can the same issues be re-agitated. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the materials placed on the record. 4 Admittedly, once an order is passed, the same cannot ordinarily be altered. However, a Court can review its own order on three grounds: (i) if there is an error apparent on the face of the record; (ii) if there is discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant; and (iii) for any other sufficient reason. It is a settled principle of law that the contentions raised or considered in the main proceedings cannot be reargued or re-agitated under the guise of a review petition, and the power of review cannot be confused with the power of appeal. We concur with the contention advanced by Mr. Bhattacharya that the petitioner’s claim that, being the son of the person who gifted the property for the purpose of setting up the school, he should be permitted to participate as a member of the Managing Committee as a person interested in education, is an altogether new contention. Such a contention was neither urged in the writ petition nor raised at the time of hearing of the intra- court appeal. The petitioner cannot, therefore, be permitted to raise, at the stage of review, a ground which was never urged in the earlier proceedings. Equally, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate or re-argue an issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. An error can be considered apparent on the face of the record only when it is patent, easily identifiable without the need for elaborate argument, and leaves no room for controversy. Such an error is immediately obvious, as if it stares at one upon a simple glance. The term 'error apparent on the face of the record' refers to an error that can be discerned by a mere perusal of the 5 record, without reference to any external matter, and one that strikes the observer immediately, without requiring a lengthy process of reasoning to pinpoint the error. Therefore, for the reasons discussed hereinabove and upon a close scrutiny of the record, we are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order passed in MAT 1390 of 2025. Moreso, as noted hereinbefore, the contention founded upon Rule 5(iv) of the Rules of 1972 was never urged by the petitioner at any earlier stage of the proceedings. Accordingly, the review petition being RVW 123 of 2026 and connected application being CAN 1 of 2026 stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.)