•  The IPAB is a judicial Tribunal, which was brought as a substitute for the High Court, and must be so both de jure and de facto;
• The power of review though not explicitly stated is not barred and is implied by the Rules;
• Rule 23 is valid and has not yet been challenged. It will become meaningless, if it is held that there is no power of review;
• The IPAB’s orders are final and there is no appeal and so if we look at Section 114 and Order 47 C.P.C., the remedy of review must exist;
• On the principle of harmonious construction, we must give life to Rule 23, and so power of review exists, and
• Review has been held not to be an independent jurisdiction but takescolor from the matter of the jurisdiction exercised.
   

Comment:

The power to review will allow a party affected by an order of the Appellate Board to attempt an inexpensive avenue to correct an order of the Board. The alternative remedy is to approach the High Court by way of writ and this could be an extremely expensive proposition.