Review, is the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement, Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224.
The expression review used in two different senses namely (1) a procedural review which is either inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under by misapprehension under it and (2) a review on merits when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the face of the record, State of Maharashtra v. Smt. Sobha Vithal Kolte, AIR 2006 Bom 44.
The word 'review' necessarily implies the power of the Board to have a second look and to so adjust from time to time its charges as to carry on its operations under the Act without sustaining a loss, Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Electricity Board, AIR 1986 SC 1126: (1986) 2 SCC 431: (1986) 1 SCR 633.
Literally and even judicially means re-examination or re-consideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility, S. Nagraj v. State of Karnataka, 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595 (619). (Constitution of India, Art. 137)
Consideration, inspection, or re-examination of a subject or thing, Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edn., p. 1320.
Under Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, s. 11, weekly payments can be reviewed at any time by either party. An application to a taxing master to reconsider certain items in a bill of costs which has been taxed is called an application to review [R.S.C. Ord. LXV., r. 27 (39)-(40)].
It is well settled that 'review' is a creature of statute and cannot be entertained in the absence of a provision thereof, Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafat Ullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814 (1817): (1979) 1 SCC 321: (1978) 1 SCR 891.
If there had been change in the circumstances of the case, it would be in order for the High Court to exercise its inherent powers in the prevailing circumstances and pass appropriate orders to secure the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court. Where there is no such changed circumstances and the decision has to be arrived at on the facts that existed as on the date of the earlier order, the exercise of the power to reconsider the same materials to arrive at different conclusion is in effect a review, Simrikhia v. Dolley Mukherjee, AIR 1990 SC 1605 (1606): (1990) 2 SCC 437: (1990) 1 SCR 788. (Criminal PC, 1974, ss. 482, 362)