Mahadev Lalkgarwél eset . Govind a Agrwal t. ‘ Petitiohe {4‘ y o fo order on J] March, 2 08. Pst r Sdl- ' . k Satish K.Agmhotr1 m Versus Rpondns Ll a -& Ohers r \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPU R Rewew Petition No 70 of 2007 ' ' (ReVIew Petition on the analogy of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC 1908) i SB Hon ble Mr Satrsh K Agmhotrl, J Present l , " - Shrl BP Sharma counselforthe appllcant(revrew petmoner) Shn Prafull Bharat counsel forthe respondent No 1 (writ petrtloner) Shn A S Kachhawaha Deputy Advocate General for the State/respondents No 2 to 4 11 “x ,.K ,y ORDER a (Passeq‘on aft-s zoos) r x The present review petition seeks review ,of the order dated» 10—10-2007 passed in*Writ Petition (C) No. 2953 of 2007 {Govind Lal Agarwal (respondent No.4 in the writ petition) Vs. Stateof Chhattisgarh and others}. 2) V Shn B P Sharma learned counsel appearing for the applicant (respondent , l i r r No 4 In writ petition) submits that against the order dated 12 3-2007 (Annexure ,_ i . P/5) to the writ petition passed bythe ConServator of Forest, Durg Circle,_Durg,‘a review was filed before the Conservator of Forest‘and in the said matter notice 3 , ‘ ‘ was issued The review petitioner submitted reply also The writ petitioner deliberately suppressed fact of pendency of reVIew petition before the Conservator _ i i _ , of Forest Forest Circle Durg Thus the writ petitioner was gwlty of supressro verl i ll Ap‘plicant Mahadev Lal Agarwa; sdn' of Late Nathnial Agarwal, aged about 69 years, resident of behind Ram Mandir, Shanti Nagar, Raipur (CG)- §,. ‘ Versus i Respondents 1) Govmd Lal Agarwal son of Late Nathmal Petitioner r Agarwal aged about 69 years, resident of L - Behind Ram Mandlr‘ Shanti Nagar‘ Raipur (CG)- ‘V' Respondents No. 1 to 3 2) ‘ ‘ Sate of Chhattisgarh,§,through the secretary, Forest Department ‘Mantralaya Raipur. 3) The Conservator of Forest Durg Circle, Durg 4) The DIVlSlonal Forest Officer Durg, Forest DIVIston Durg b and suggesio falsi. Mr. Sharma, would further contend that the State authorities have wrongly submitted before this Court that the respondents No. 2 and 3 have acted beyond theirjurisdiction as the respondents-authorities have exercised their power under the provisions of Section 6 and 11 of C.G. Kashtha Chiran (Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1984 (for short, “the Adhiniyam 1984”). Mr. Sharma admits that it is provided under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1984, that filing of a civil suit is debarred. Mr. Sharma would further submit that it is well settled principle that the petitioner can choose only one method of remedy and other remedy is barred. 3) Per contra, Mr. Prafull Bharat, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) submits that this review petition is not maintainable on the ground that despite due service on the review petitioner, the review petitioner had failed to appear before this Court to put fonivard his case. Mr. Bharat further submits that filing of review-petition before the Conservator of Forest against the order dated 12-3-2007 (Annexure P/5) would not come in the way of this Court in' exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4) l have heard learned counsel for the review petitioner as well as respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), perused pleadings and documents appended thereto. 5) The review petitioner had not explained non-appearance before this Court after due service of the notice issued by this Court in the writ petition. This Court has considered all the aspects of the matter before passing a judgment and order dated 10-1 0-2007 which is sought to be reviewed in this petition. Mere filing of an application which may be termed as review petition without having any prescription under provisions of the Adhiniyam, 1984, cannot be termed as parallel proceeding. There was no statutory provision prescribing for maintainability of a review/revision before the Appellate Authority exercising its power under Section 11 of the Adhiniyam, 1984. ‘The review petitioner has not made out a case on merit that by not appearing before th'e Court at the time of hearing of the writ petition, the review petitioner has been prejudiced. The review a z/V \ // . / petitioner has not brought new facts which necessitates re-hearing of the writ petition. 6) The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error in the record and the petitioner has not further brought into the notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. lt is well settled principles 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High ,Court under Article 226 of the Constitution The applicant has not produced any new ground for review, except the same ground which has been considered and decided in the writ petition. 7) The principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary‘, Lily Thomas, etc. Vs. Union of India and others2, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government. of T.N. and others Vs. ‘M.Ananchu Asari and others‘, and Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd and otherss. 8) Applying the well settled principles of law to the present case, there is no ground available for review of the order dated 10-10-2007 under the garb of the review petition, the petitioners seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 9) As a result and in view of the foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. l Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Raju 1 AIR 1995 SC 455 2 AIR 2000 SC 1650 3 AIR 2000 SC 85 4 (2005) 2 SCC 332 5 (2005) 6 SCC 651