C.D. Tirkey v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Superintendentflf Police, ' Korba (CG). PETITtON FOR REVIEW OF 9/10/2013 PASSEbBy THISHON'BLE COURT INWPJSj ORDER OATED THE N0.3321/2013 ^-' • ol' <-' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0.218 OF 2013 APPLICANT/ Petitionerin WP (S) No.3321/2013 RESPONDENTS/ Respondents No.1to3inWP fS)No.3321/2013 C.D.…
Judgment
C.D. Tirkey, aged about 49 years, S/o Late Shri Etiyazer City Tirkey, Superintendent of Police, Korba, R/o Irrigation Colony, RNo.J..~&2..1r«».y^y<,l^..^ Korba, Police Station Kotwali, RNO. PresentsdbySMri^A^^^®? Korba, District Korba(C6). QatQd.................-^3^4-^-/^y-. Occupation RESPON&ENTS/ Respon^ents No. WP 3 No.3321/2013 1 (Sl A- y^S^^ O J^ \ fl> Vs ^-^'
State of Chhattisgarh, - Through Department Mantralaya, Raipur (C6). Secretary, Home, t)KS Bhawan, v9.
birector Seneral of Police, /- Police Headquarters, Raipup (C<5).
Superintendentflf Police, ' Korba (CG). PETITtON FOR REVIEW OF 9/10/2013 PASSEbBy THISHON'BLE COURT INWPJSj ORDER OATED THE N0.3321/2013 ^-' • ol' <-' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0.218 OF 2013 APPLICANT/ Petitionerin WP (S) No.3321/2013 RESPONDENTS/ Respondents No.1to3inWP fS)No.3321/2013 C.D. Tirkey Versus Stateof Chhattisgarh & Others (Application for review of the order dated 9-10-2013 passed in WP(S)No.3321of2013) (By circulation in Chamber) •f Siogle Bench : Hon'ble Shri Prashant KumEir Mishra, J. -» ORDER (Passed'on this 1S: day of November, 2013) The matteris taken up for consideration in the chaniber under provtsions ofsub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. The review petitioner (for short "the petitioner") seeks review of the order dated 9-10-2013 passed in WP (S) No.3321 of 2013 on the ground that due to inadvertence certain facts & groun^ls have not been brought before this Court by the the time of filing of writ petition or during the petitioner at course of hearing of the said writ petition. is indisputable that the order dated 9-10-2013, which is It sought to be reviewed herein, has been passed by this Court in WP (S) No.3321 of 2013on the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to the extent that ^leamed counsel fo.r the petitioner, seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the writ petition.
" It is also not in dispute Ci! 3 ^ that while withdrawing the said writ petition, the petition has not sought any liberty to revive his prayer before this Court, if occasion arises. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an oppqpunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is a trite law that an order which is in the nature of consent (See: Chitranjan orderGannot be reviewed or re-called. Burman v. Om Prakash Bajona and Others). It is also the well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh, which would^amount to convert the revi^w petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable (See : Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar inlaw. India and Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of Cshwdhary2, others3, AJit Kumar Rath v.
State of Orissa and others, GovernmeDtofT.N.&Othersv. M. Ananchu Asari at^dothers, and Keria State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others). In view of foregoing, the review petition, sans substratum, liabte to be and is hereby dismissed. < Gowri ' Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge 1 2001 AIRSCW 4217 ZAIR1995SC455 3AIR2000SC1650 "AIR2000SC85 5 6 (2005) 2 SCC 332 (2005) 6SCC 651
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.