IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review Petition No.201 of 2008 ------- Mahendra Swarup Srivastava son of Late Yogeshwar Prasad Srivastava, resident of village- Pachlakhi, P.S.- Nautan, District-Siwan. -- Petitioner -- Petitioner Versus 1. Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. (Biscomaun), West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna through its Administrator (Now Managing Director). 2. The Administrator (now Managing Director) Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd. (Biscomaun) West Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 3. Shri Mantreshwar Jha, I.A.S., the then Administrator, Biscomaun, Patna now posted as Secretary, Planning Department, New Delhi. 4. Shri Akhauri Bipin Bihari, Finance Contoller cum Inquiring Officer, Biscomaun, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna. -- Respondents-- Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioner : M/s Madan Mohan Prasad, Manindra Kumar & Anurag Pandey, Advocates --------- 05. 03.02.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil review petition has been filed for review of order of this court dated 28.02.2008 by which CWJC No.2934 of 2002 filed on behalf of the petitioner was dismissed by a reasoned order having found no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order of the authorities concerned or in the proceeding in question. Against the aforesaid order of this court, the petitioner filed LPA No.267 of 2008 which was allowed to be withdrawn by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 06.08.2008 which reads as follows:- “Mr. Madan Mohan Prasad, counsel for the appellant, seeks withdrawal of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to file an application seeking review of the order dated 28th February, 2008 as according to the counsel, the diverse issues raised by the petitioner have not been considered and touched upon by the - 2 - single judge. The appeal is allowed to be withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.” After considering the detailed arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and also appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as materials on record, this court finds that this court had considered all the issues which were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing of CWJC No.2934 of 2002 and only thereafter order dated 28.02.2008 was passed in the said writ case. No other issues were raised on behalf of the petitioner at the time of hearing of the said writ petition. Hence, the submission made before the Division Bench in LPA No.267 of 2008 was absolutely wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to raise fresh grounds and issues at the time of argument, but it cannot legally be allowed in a review case. Furthermore, this court does not find any error apparent on the face of the order sought to be reviewed, nor any material is produced, which was not available with the petitioner when the said order was passed, nor even there is any other valid reason to review the impugned order. Hence, this court finds that this civil review petition is as frivolous as the writ petition, if not more, and, accordingly, it is dismissed. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)