CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950 Art. 137 - Review Petition - Held: Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal; they have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of 0.47, r. 1 CPC - In the instant case, the error contemplated in the impugned judgment is not one which is apparent on the face of the record, rather the dispute is wholly founded on interpretation and applicability of ss. 11(2) and 11(4) of MMDR Act - In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same - However, the misquoted portion of the Report, owing to clerical mistakes, is deleted from the judgment - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0.47, r. 1 - Supreme Court Rules. 1966 - 0.40 - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 - ss. 11(2) and 11(4) - Delay/Laches.

The petitioner-Union of India filed the instant review petition seeking review of the judgment and order dated 13.9.2010 passed in Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. It was the case of the petitioner that it could not put forth its view in the case for the reason that copy of the special leave petition was not served upon it and, as such, it could not get an opportunity to be heard in the case. The  impugned judgment was mainly challenged on two issues (i) "that the impugned judgment has incorrectly reported the 'Report of the Committee to Review the Existing Laws and Procedures for Regulation and Development of Minerals'. As a consequence, the ratio of impugned judgment, which relies on this Expert Committee Report, shall stand erroneous in the eyes of law"; and (ii) that s. 11 (2) and s. 11 (4) of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation Act, 1957) should be applicable to both virgin and previously held areas.