^) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANTS NON- APPLICANT REVIEW PETITION No. 75 of2007 1. State of Chhattisgarh throu^i: The Secretary, Govt. ofChhattisgarh, Tnbal Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Maiitralaya, Raipur (CG). 2. The Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Panchayat & Rural Developmeirt Department, DK8 Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). 3. The Collector, District Jashpur (CG). VERSUS r. Etajendra Prasad Shukla, Aged about 41 years, S/o Late Shri Rampati Shukla, Chief Executive Qfficer, Janpad Panchayat Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG) Presently R/o Village Dhakhara, Post Deogaon, Tateil Raipur, Kaikarehuliya, Distt. Rewa, Madhya Pradesh. APPUCATION FOR REVIEW AND RECALL OF ORDER DATED 20.04.2007 PASSED IN W.P.fS) N0. 6477/2006. (SB: Hon*bleMr.SattshK.Agnihota4,.J.) Prwent : Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt. Advocate forthe applicants. ORALORDER (Passed on tlris 17th ofNovember, 2007) 1. The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review ofthe order dated 20.04.2007 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6477/2006 (Eh-. Rajendra Prasad Shukla Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & 2 Others), wherein, the petition was disposed of on account of statement made by the Advocates appearing for the respondent No. 1 & 3. 2. Leamed counsel appearing for the applicants submits that after the posting oftlie petitioner in the Panchayat ^c Rural Development Department, the petitioner was again transferred to his parent department i.e. Vetermary & Animal Husbandry. This was not the subject matter of W.P.(S) 6477/06 and a subsequent fact which was neither raised nor brought itito the notice of the court.can not be gound for reviewing of (h.e wder passed in Writ Petitin. /:~~^~ - ^) 3. This review is not maintainable since the prayer of the petitioner in Writ Petitin confines only to quash the transfer order fiom the Tribal Welfare Deparbnent to Panchayat & Rural Development Department. 4. Thus, there is 110 ground to review the order dated 20.04.2007 passed in W.P.(S)No.6477/W. 5. The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on fhe record and the petitioner has not fiirther brou^at into tfae notice, any new fact which could not be produoed earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles oflaw that tfie review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly opnfined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, even in exereise of review jiirisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The applicant has not produeed any new ground for review, except the same younds which have been considered and decided m tfae wntpetition. 6. Applying the well settled principles of law to tfie present case, tha-e is no grouad available for review ofthe order dated 20.04.2007. Under the garb oftlie review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and ttie same is not sustainable in law. 7. As a result and in view of the foregoing, this review ai^lication is dismissed. No order as to oosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Salm