Lal Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh

^Bhuneshwer Jain S/o Shri Moti Lal Jain, aged about 53, Years, occupation service, Accountant, 0/0 Asgistant Coininissioner, Kanker. R/o RES colony-24, Charaina, District-Kanker (CG) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development Departnaent, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ .'- 2, Commissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development, Pt. Ravi Shankar University, Chhattisgarh, Raipur 3; Assistant Commissioner, Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe Development, Office at Collectorate Dist- Kanker (C.G.) APPUCATIQN UN_DER PROVISION OF SUBRULE 2 OF RULE 90 UND£R_CHEPTERVI£)FTHE_HIGH_COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2007 FOR REVIEWING THE fiRDER DATED 13.08.2012 PASSD BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WPS N0. 31T4/2012 "Bhuneshwer Jain Vs State of C.G.Ss others" w °>^ J"^'12- fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 140 of 2012 APPLICANT PETITIONER Bhuneshwar Jain. VERSUS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh &.0thers. APPLICATION UNDER PROVISOIN OF SUB-RULE 2 OF RULE 90 UNDER -, CHAPTER VI OF THE mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES. 2007 FOR -' REVIEWn^G THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2012 PASED BY TfflS HON'BLE COURT IN WPS No. 3 114/2012 (BHUNESHWAR JAIN V.STATE OF C.G. & OTHERS). (BY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB:jIonlbI^Shri^at!shK. Agmhotri^J, ORDER (Passed on 05th dayofSeptember, 2012)

The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions ofsub Rule 2 of Rule .90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules,

The review petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 13.08.2012 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3114 of 2012 (Bhuneshwar Jain v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by this Court, wherein the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

The petitioner seeks review of the aforesaid order on the ground that the mtention ofthe petitioner was to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fi-esh petition, however, due to mistake, in tbe order, it has been mentioned that fhe petitioner intended to withdraw the writ petition on the ground that he wants to make a representation to the respondent authorities.

On perusal ofthe order dated 13.08.2012, it is apparent that the same was passed on a specific request made by leamed counsel for the petitioner. Now, leamed counsel submits that the intention of the petitioner was to file a fresh petition after withdrawing the said petition. The counsel for the petitioner neither expressed nor submitted before this Court that he intended to file a fresh petition, \ at the time ofhearing. The order sought'to be reviewed, was passed in the open court without any objection ofthe counsel for the petitioner. The eounsel for the petitioner is expected to be fair and honest, after havmg made oral request for passing the order. This act amounts to unfair practice and blowing hot and cold together at the writ petition stage and fhereafter, in the review petition, which must be deprecated. Thus, there is no reason to amend or modify the order dated

13.08.2012. The review petitioner has not pointed oyt any manifest error on the record and has not fiuther brought mto the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled prmciples of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 bffhe Constitution, the petitioner has not produced any ground for review. It appears that fhe petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue fhe entire case afresh under the garb of the review petition which is not pennissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle oflaw that under the garbofreview petition, the applicant should not be pemiitted to argue the entire case a&esh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law.