IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1378 of 2010 IN CIVIL REVIEW NO.275 of 2009 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO.7700 of 2010 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1378 of 2010 ========================================= Shri Haridwar Pandey,Advocate, (aged over 82 years) also sick and unwell s/o late Sri R.D. Pandey, permanent resident of village – Baghakol, P.S. – Ara Muffasil, District – Bhojpur but presently residing at Laxmi Bhawan, P.P. Colony, Patna ………….. Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Vigilance Commissioner, Bailey Road, Patna 2. Sri D.P.Ojha, IPS, the then DG Vigilance Police (now retired) – 6 Circular Road, Patna 3. Sri Prakash Rai, the then Spl. Judge Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna 4. Sri P.P.Singh, the then Spl. P.P., Vigilance, Patna… Respondents ============================================ APPEARANCE For the Appellant : Mr. Haridwar Pandey, (in person) For the Respondents : None =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3 20/9/2010 Heard the appellant in person extensively. The Appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the order dated 21st April 2010 made by the learned Single Judge in Civil Review Application No.275 of 2009. The Civil Review Application No.275 of 2009 was filed by the appellant for review of the order dated 26th August 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in 2 MJC No.1381 of 2003 filed under the Contempt of Courts Act for non-compliance of the order dated 27th March 1991 passed in Cr. Misc. No.2368 of 1991. The appellant was engineer in the Public Works Department of the State of Bihar. Special Case no.158 of 1983 (arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No.37 (4)/ 1978) for offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act is pending against the appellant in the court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Patna. We are informed that the trial is still pending. The above referred litigations are offshoots of the said trial. It appears that pending the trial the appellant approached this court in Cr. Misc. No.2368 of 1991. On 27th March 1991 this court disposed of the said application in the following terms: “It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Vigilance Department that before examining any new witness and bringing any new document in evidence which are not mentioned either in case diary or in the charge-sheet or in the F.I.R., the prosecution shall furnish a copy of the statement of the witnesses proposed to be examined and a copy of the document proposed to be admitted in evidence to the accused at least one week in advance. It is directed accordingly.” It may be noted that the appellant filed Cr. WJC. No.483 of 1998 with Interlocutory Application No.632 of 1998 seeking compliance of the aforesaid direction dated 27th March 1991. The said Cr. WJC and the Interlocutory Application came to be dismissed on 23rd September 1998. The appellant thereafter filed Cr. 3 WJC. No.87 of 2002 in the same subject matter which was later on converted into MJC No.1381 of 2003 under the Contempt of Courts Act. The said MJC No.1381 of 2003 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 26th August 2009. The learned Single Judge recorded that the appellant had suppressed material facts in respect of the order dated 14th July 2004 passed by the Division Bench of this court in Or. Cr. Misc. No.7 of 2004 and the dismissal of Cr. WJC. No.483 of 1998 and the Interlocutory Application no.632 of 1998. On the said ground alone, the learned Single Judge dismissed the contempt application. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed the above referred Civil Review Application No.275 of 2009 for review of the order dated 26th August 2009. The said review application has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 21st April 2010. Therefore, the present appeal. The appellant has made submissions in extenso. He has mainly argued how he has been harassed by the respondent – authorities; how the trial has not been conducted in accordance with law etc. He has also argued in details on how the order dated 27th March 1991 was flouted by the prosecution. Nevertheless, no argument has been advanced on merits of the Review Application. We have perused the entire records before us. We are of the opinion that the appellant in his lengthy application for review did not make out any case for 4 review. The case pleaded was actually on merits. In the guise of review, the matter could not have been re- argued. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the review application. We see no merit in the present Appeal. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Neyaz/ ( R. M. Doshit,CJ.) ( Jyoti Saran, J.)