The arguments which have been advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of review petition, in fact, are the same arguments, which were canvassed before this Court at the time when writ petitions were argued for final hearing. All these arguments were noted, discussed and dealt with in detail. It is though another matter that they have not been accepted and have been rejected giving certain reasons. Why the court has given the finding that the RERC in its order dated 31.8.2007 in para 129 has not given any consequence of the failure of the Discoms and why it has held that the benefit of ambiguity has to go to the Discoms and not to the consumers is supported by reasons, the legality of which may be open to challenge in an appeal, but cannot be subject matter of review. Similarly, why the reversal of the incentives which as per the main theme of the judgement was erroneously granted to the industrial consumers has been held to be not a retrospective recovery, was also arrived at by a thorough process of reasoning. In fact, all these arguments which are being advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the review
