H§§H €£§QRT G? 3HHATT€MEIKR§€ BBLASPUR Wyit Fem§an {Sb Nix $552 0% 233% Qat‘étioner W5. Chhai’dsgam Bwwefies Lid” Khapri, Non~appi§can1 Kumhari, D§$trict Burg (Cgl thraugh its ALxtharizezf SignatoryfCcmpaiem §3$rson ’69 faée petiticn ami yepz'esent the {mmpany im 'ihe Cami r}ame§y Sumara Kamar $I‘o Lafe Sm RS. Méénya, aged about é years, working as Genera! Managrar, mag'kgimg of W3. Chhaftisgaré‘a Distiiieries Ltd, Khapri, Kumhari. Dissty‘ict Dm'g {CG}. Versu$ ‘a. The $iate a? Chhattisgam, thmugh the E aise {Ecmmissmnw‘ Chhamsgam. RaipuNSi‘B}. Eigggvandems 2. M15. Ehatia Wii’ae Mea‘chant ¥vt L€d., DayaQband Biiat: ur {CG} Thmug?: me Ekentor Amdwk $irxgh Bhaéia, Qayaibansi, Bilaspm {CG}. {Writ Pemian under A¥i§c§e 227 0 Consziiutian 0f im‘ia) 3%: Hon§b§e Mr. $aiésh $&§gniheifé. J‘. MK. Bhaa‘uii, ca f0; thug getEtimeru i m Pi Shr‘é Amk Eak3hi. Govt. Aiivcxcate fay the :‘ea‘poimerxi Na? !3iate. $hr§ Abhishek 3mm, Counsei for me fesaondant F402. QRALaRBER Wassed an this 3E“ wiay 9f $eg3tembey, 213%) The getéfsoneg‘ quesmns ihe omef daied 22—8~2C308 (iixnnexure PM} passw by ihe Pfesident, 30am 0f Revanue, Raipun m Revanae Rwiew {Ease No. H.Wi35fE!6612098, Whea'eby me 368m of Rewnue hab‘ ematamec? a fewew petmon against the orde¥ dateé 2§-7-2£E08 (Annexure Ff?) gassed bx! the Member 6f me Beam of Revenge. 2} Mr. Ehadu!i, iéarned caunse§ anraearing fO'r ’me p§i§t§ene§ subm§t5 ihat aémmediy ihe Board o§ Ravemie has a paweaf i0 mview ks {mi-e? gmssecé -ar§§e; as envisaged una’ea" Rimes foa' Appea§s and Revisierzs framed awe? Sect§cn 82 {2){c} a? “the Q3 Excése Act, ?§?5 (for shim, the Aat, $15,}. 3} Ruie V§§§~A {1) ef the Rxaies dea§§ng wéih Agwais and Revismns {hel’emafter refenea‘ ta as “the Rug‘es‘ii provs'cies for “review «3f ‘ihe ardérs. Sui) R.m (2} m” Rage ’w’ii3-A of the Rales wavz’des thai rm crater sha§§ m fewewsd Except of ihe gwunds pmvidw for m the Coée (3f CM! Waceiiui’e, was (v af 1908). 4} Learned cmmsei subm§ts éha ihe review haS is be heam by iha same member . who has g5assed ihe mcierv 5) ML Abhishek 3mm: §eamed coansei appearmg fer ma ie-spaneiem N02 subm‘ts thai there £5 a pracecimai we fer tensidering review awéications. ’i‘hus! the review faas ta ba wocessed am; heard, m accordame w§th the previsione cf me Rmee. 6) ‘Be We: as §t may, sime admiitewy ihe Beam ef Revenge haS pmwer 1'0 reva'ew ite awn erder, it %s mi necessary w ge, at ihis eiage, en the gmua’ad ava53ab§e to ihe {espezident M12 f0? fa'iing review app$§caf§on TMS §3 far me Beam ef Reveme te examine arm eansidef ihe revaew appiica‘tiom, m aeeemanee Mm §aw. T} Without expressing any aeEnimvon ihe merit of the case, We Gem? is of me opinien ihai this petmon is a friveieus as the grounds raised én feview pefimn cannot be e-onsiéered by the High Ceurf in exerc§se cf its superasery jwisdictien under Amcie 22? of the Consiitamen of hem. 8) The eetition is devoid 0f merit ane §s aecorci€ng§y eismieeee‘. Canseqisemw, LANoA stands dispeseék 0f. \ Sdl— :vSatish K. Agnihotn Judge Raiu