4F^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BIL PETiTiON N0. 35 GF 2007 Smt. Pramila Sinha Versus Chhattisgarh State Eiection Commission and another. Post for order /9 -7-200; Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge iOi iGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BiLASPUR iViEW PETITiON N0. 38 OF 2007 Smi. Pramiia Sinha, aged about 44 years, wife of Uday Ram Sinha, Discjual'i'fied President, Nagar Panchayat - Abhanpur, District Raipu.r (CG). 1) 2) Chhattisaarh State Eiection Commisslon, through - its Secretary, Mahanadi Khand, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG). CoEiector-cum-District Election Kniir fF'^\ '!i"U^?l , r^^t!pUi {'k^'^SJ. (Prayer for review of the order dated 29-3-2007) !: Hon'bie Mr. Jusiice Satish K. Agnihotr .^yg Present: Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Jitendra Nande, counsei for the petitloner. Shri Prashant Mishra, Sr. Advocate vvith Shri B.D. Guru, counsel for ths respondents. 'assed on /<)^JuIy, 2007) 3y this petition, the Detitioner seeks review of the order dated 29-3-2007 passed by this Court !n Writ Petition (C) No. 1866/2007. ~ 2) Heard learned counsei for'the partles. 3) The facts in nut shei! are that this Court vide order dated 29-3-2007 dismissed the petition of the oetitioner hoiding that the respondent No.1 i.e., Chhattisgarh State Eiection Commission in its order datsd 21-2-2007 (Annexure A/2) has considered ail the points raised in the petition. It was further observed that the oetitioner was 2 required under t'ne provisions of Section 32-B of the Chhattisgam Municipalities Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act, 1961") to lodge the account of expenses in the election within the prescribed period of thirty days, but the same was done aftsr five months i.e., on 22-6-2005 and that there ^was no infirmity, ISIegailty or irreguiarity in the order dated 21-2-2007 passed by the respondent No.1. 4) T'ne review petitioner has sought for review of the order on the grounds that t'nls Court while hearing the main petition, has not considered the fact that the petitsoner was never given show cause notice bythe State ESection Com'mission, and the order dated 21-2-2007 was passed without considering t'ne petition ot' t'ne review application and thirdiy, the order passed by the State Eiection Commission was perverse as the same was contrar^ to the report given by the Enquiry Officer. 5) Learned counsel appearing for t'ne petitioner would suomit that this Court has not considered the ground No. 5.5 averred in the writ petition. However, on query as to whether the same was argued or not, iearned counsei expressed his ignorance about the fact. The State Eiection Commission vide its order dated 21-2-2007 running into flve pages has considered ali the aspects ofthe matter and has come to the right conciusion that the statement of account was not fiied within the prescribed time, t'nus the same' resulted into disquaiificatton under Ssction 32-C ofthe Act, 1961. 6) "So far as issue of show cause notice is concerned, the petitioner has filed a review application pursuant to the order. dated 2-2-2007 ''^.sssss's^ passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.4456 of 2006. Therefore, the question of show cause notice is not avaiiabie to the petitioner. The petitioner has fuii opportunlty before the State ESection Commission to put-forward her case. 7) The Supreme Court in the matier of Vivekanand Sethl Vs. Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and others1 observed ai para 22 as under: " The principle of naturai justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry wouid be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppei wiil appiy. (Ses Gurjeewan Garewai (Dr.) v. Dr. Sumitra Dash) T'ne princiDies of natura! iustice are reguired to be complied with havlng regard to the fact situaflon obtaining therein. Et cannot 'be put in a straltlacket forrriuia. 't cannot be aDD'ied in a vacuum without reference to the i'eievant 'facts and circumstances of the case. (See Srate of Punjab v. Jagsr Singh and Kamataka SRTC v. S.G. Katturappa)". 8) The Suoreme Court in the matter of ivl/s. Northern India Caterers (!ndla) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Goyernor of Delhl', observed at para 8 as under: "8. It is weii settied that a party is not entitied to seek a review of a judgmsnt delivered by thls Court mereiy for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decisio" of the case. The nQrmal principie is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is finai, and departure from that principie is justlfied oniy when circumstan-ces of a subsSant'al and compeiiing character make it necessar/ to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1965) 1 SCR 933 at p. 948. Forjnstance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a materia! statutory provision during the origina! hsai-ing, ths Court wili reviss its judgment. G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta (1S71) 3 SCR 748 at o.760. The Court may a!so reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necsssary to pass an orcier to ao tuii and effective justice. O.N. MQhlndroo v. Dist. Judge, Deihi (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p.27. Pow/er to review its judgments has been confe,-red on the Suprsme • (.20U5) 5 SCC 337 'AI2.1980 SC 674 -s^y=r j- F Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any is'A' made by Parliament or the ruies made under Art. 145. in a civii proceeding, an appiication for review is entertained oniy on a ground mentioned in O. XLV!!, Ruie 1 ofthe Code ofCivii Procedure and in a crimina! proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL, R.1, Suprems Court Rufes, 1966). But whatsver the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a revisw proceeding cannot be equated w'th the originai hearing of the case, and the flnality of the judsment deiivered by the Court wiii not be reconsidered excepi 'where a giaring omisslon or patent mistake or !ike grave error has crept in earlier bv judicia! fa!iibi!ity. Chandra Kanta v. ijL-h Mahih /I Q7R'S "< SfO CS'a'S " i^isxi i F-{S£yiEJ, ^ I •S?t -bty ^ ^-t^/a \ ^^-^. 9) The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the petitioner has not further brought into the notice, any new fact which couid not be produced eariier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is weii settied pnnciples of iaw that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to b©strictly confined to the scope and ambit ot' Order 47 Ruie 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exerelse of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The aDplicant has not Droduced any new ground for review, except t'ne same ground which has been considered and decided in the writ petition. 10) Prlncipie or lav/ is weil settied by severai judiciai pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. iyirmaia Kumar Choudhary. •' Lify Thomas, etc. Vs. Union of jndia and others4, Ajit Kismar Rath Vs. State of Or'ssa and others , lovernment of T.N. snd othfirs Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others . 3AIR1995SC455 4AIR 2000 SC i650 5 AIR 2000 SC 85 6 (2005) 2 SCC 332 Raju and Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others . 11) Further, the next contention that the order dated 25-5-2006 was contrary to the report of the Coliector. This Court has already considered the said order vide order dated 2-2-2007 and granted iibertv to the Detitioner to file a review oetition and in the review order, the State Eiection Commission has considered ai! the facts in detaii. 12) Applying the weii settied principles of law to the present case, t'nere is no ground avaiiable for review of the order dated 29-3-2007. Under the garb of the revie-w petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh which wouid amount to convert the review petition into an appeal ana' the same is not sustainabie in iaw. 13) As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review appiication is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 7 (2005) 6 SCC 651 ^-« ~A-- ,. .-3"