IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION) APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee RVW 224 of 2026 (with CAN 1 of 2026) In WPA 18458 of 2026 Azimganj Nimtala Ghat Mallar @ Mallah Samity & Ors. Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. For the petitioners/applicants : Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Ms. Saloni Bhattacharjee, Ms. Zoya Eram. For the State : Mr. Susanta Dutta, Mr. Noni Gopal Chakraborty. For the Municipality/ Respondent no. 9 : Mr. Anindya Lahiri, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Usof Ali Dewan, Mr. Asif Dewan, Mr. Subhomoy Pant. Heard on : 10.09.2026 Judgment on : 10.09.2026 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:- 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 3rd September, 2026 passed by this Court in WPA 18458 of 2026, the present applicants have preferred the instant memorandum of review along with an accompanying application. 2. Mr. Ahammed, learned Advocate appearing for the applicants, refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338 [Yashwant Sinha and Ors. vs. Central Bureau of Investigation] and submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and that neither the rules of procedure nor the technicalities of law can be permitted to stand in its way. 3. He submits that, by the order dated 3rd September, 2026, the writ petition being WPA 18458 of 2026, preferred by the present applicants prior to the issuance of the tender-cum-e-auction notice dated 8th August, 2026, came to be dismissed, inter alia, on the basis of certain submissions advanced on behalf of the State and upon acceptance of the submission advanced by Mr. Lahiri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Municipality, that a writ Court cannot sit in appeal over a decision taken by an expert body, or a body of experts, in the matter of determination of the bid value. 4. He contends that an error apparent on the face of the record has crept into the order, inasmuch as the Court has omitted to consider the purpose and object underlying the incorporation of Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, 1991. He submits that sub-rule (iii) of Rule 281 mandates that, in the matter of settlement of a ferry ghat, preference should be given to a local boatmen’s cooperative society or to a partnership consisting of local boatmen and hereditary patni. According to him, the aforesaid provision was incorporated keeping in view the constitutional objective embodied in Article 46 of the Constitution of India, which forms part of the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV thereof. 5. He submits that this Court accepted the submission advanced on behalf of the Municipality that the bid value was determined with a view to augmenting its revenue. He contends that augmentation of revenue cannot, by itself, be regarded as the predominant consideration where the statutory provision contemplates settlement of the ferry ghat in favour of a cooperative society or partnership firm constituted of local boatmen. He further submits that the aforesaid aspect, having not been considered by this Court, has resulted in an error apparent on the face of the record. 6. He submits that there is no quarrel with the observation made in the order that, in the earlier round of litigation, a Coordinate Bench had declined to accept the petitioner’s challenge to the notification dated 1st February, 2019, whereby the ferry ghat was declared to be a municipal ferry. He further submits that, although this Court has observed in the impugned order that there was no illegality in the decision-making process, the omission on the part of the Municipality to apply the provisions of Rule 281 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Manual, 1991, in the tender process constitutes an error which warrants review of the order. According to him, such omission constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record and furnishes a valid ground for recalling and/or modifying the order. He submits that this Court also failed to consider that, prior to the issuance of the e-auction notice, the Municipality had not undertaken any exercise to ascertain whether there was more than one cooperative society in the locality formed by local boatmen. 7. To reinvigorate his submission, he relies upon another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M.P. Oil Extraction and Anr. Vs. State of M.P. and Ors. reported at AIR 1998 SC 145. 8. Per contra, Mr. Lahiri, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Municipality, vehemently opposes the contention advanced by Mr. Ahammed on behalf of the applicants. He submits that a Court can be invited to review its own order only upon the satisfaction of any of the contingencies contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. According to him, none of the contingencies contemplated under the said provision is attracted in the present case. He further submits that a review application cannot be converted into an appeal and that a review applicant cannot claim an opportunity to reagitate or reargue an issue which has already been considered and dealt with in the impugned order and which had already been raised by the parties in the proceedings. 9. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the State adopts the submissions made by Mr. Lahiri, learned Senior Advocate. 10. Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, deals with the right of an aggrieved party to seek review of a judgment, decree or order and prescribes the procedure governing such remedy. Though, by virtue of the Explanation to Section 141 of the Code, the provisions of Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 are not directly applicable to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the inapplicability of the said provisions does not denude the writ Court of its inherent power to review an order passed in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226. The plenary jurisdiction vested in a writ Court inheres in it the power to review its own order in order to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct a gross or palpable error. 11. Generally, once a judgment or order has been pronounced, the same cannot ordinarily be altered or reviewed by the Court. However, a judgment or order may be reviewed on any of the following three grounds, namely: (i) the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the original judgment, decree or order was passed; (ii) a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 12. The expression “error apparent on the face of the record” cannot be precisely or exhaustively defined. An error which is self-evident, patent and which stares one in the face on a mere perusal of the record may be regarded as an “error apparent on the face of the record”. Conversely, an error which requires a detailed examination of the matter or an elaborate process of reasoning and in respect of which a long-drawn argument is necessary to establish the alleged error cannot ordinarily be regarded as an error apparent on the face of the record. 13. There is a distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an erroneous decision has been rendered as a result of a misinterpretation of law, the appropriate remedy is ordinarily by way of an appeal, where the appellate Court can examine and correct such erroneous decision. However, where an error has occurred on account of an omission or failure to consider a settled proposition of law, or where there has been a misconception of law or fact which is apparent from the record, such error may constitute an error apparent on the face of the record and furnish a valid ground for inviting the Court to review its own order. 14. A mere failure to correctly interpret a provision of law cannot, by itself, be regarded as a mistake or error on the part of the Court, even if such interpretation results in an erroneous decision. There is also no quarrel with the settled proposition that a review is not an appeal in disguise and that, in a review proceeding, an applicant cannot claim liberty to reagitate an issue which was already raised and considered at the time of hearing of the main petition, or to raise an issue which ought to have been agitated at that stage. 15. In the present case, the main thrust of the argument advanced by Mr. Ahammed is that this Court, while disposing of the writ petition, omitted to consider the purpose and object underlying the incorporation of Rule 281 of the Manual. According to him, since the legislature has mandated that the settlement of the ferry ghat is to be confined to cooperative societies or partnership firms constituted of local boatmen, this Court ought to have considered whether the authority, while determining the bid value, was required to bear in mind the constitutional objective embodied in Article 46 of the Constitution of India, forming part of the Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Part IV thereof. However, this Court, having observed that the bid value had been determined by an expert or a body of experts of the Municipality and that the writ Court could not sit in appeal over such determination, there was no occasion for this Court to examine what factors ought to have been taken into consideration by the authority while determining the bid value. 16. There cannot be any scintilla of doubt as to the binding nature of the precedents laid down in the decisions cited by Mr. Ahammed; however, those decisions are of no assistance to the petitioners. 17. Therefore, based on the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any justification to exercise the power of review jurisdiction as sought for by the applicants in the present application. 18. Accordingly, the instant review application along with connected application stands dismissed; however, without any order as to the costs. 19. All parties shall act on the basis of server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this Court. Page 8 of 8 20. Urgent photostat certified copies of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)