COURT BY^NOTIFICATION N0.996QD-2B70/X/ B/C-G-^AS SPECIFIED IN SCHEDULfc I&HOFTHECOURT FEESACT-t&70~ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH REVIEW PETITION N0. 2>i OF 2011 filBBlB Bench ^ APPLICANTS (RESPONDENTS) •^- <^?wc^-^r y^^-"^" ^d"""^' ~ —•" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, ^- Through the Secretary, Department of Veterinary, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG.) The Director, Veterinary Scrvices, Chhattisgarh Raipur District Raipur (CG.) The Joint Director, Veterinary Services, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (CG.) 4. The Assistant Director, Veterinar;^ Services, Raigarh District Raigarh (CG.) 3 VERSUS NQN APPLICANT/ RBSPONDENT/ e/]PBTITIONER Premlal Sarthi, S/o Late Bhagirathi Sarthi, Aged about 47 years, Vaccinator, Animal Hospital, Tamnar, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG.) APPLICATION FOR I^VIEW/RECALL OF THE ORDER DATED 19/01/2011 PASSBD IN W.P. (S) N0. 13^72009 BEARING _^A/U'^^_ PARTIES "PREMLAL SAXWR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND 3 QTHERS", HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPUCANTS NON-APPLJCANT REVIEW PETITION No. 36 of 2011 State of Chhattisgarh & Others VERSUS Premlal Sarthi APPLICATION FOR REVIEW/RECALL QF THEQRDERDATED 19/01Q011 PASSED IN W.P.(S) No.1326^009 (BY CIRCULATION IN CHMBER) SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. AgnihotTi, 4. ORDER (Passed on 12th day of May. 2011) 1, The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under tbe provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court ofChhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. I.A.No.1, this is an application for condonation of ddlay in flling tfee review petition. The review petition has been filed after 65 days ofthe limitation period. The grounds made in the application for condonation of delay in satisfectory and appears to be bona ffcte. Thus, deiay in filir^ review petition is condoned. 3. By this application, the review petitioner/State seeks review of the order dated 19-01-2011 passed by this Court in W.P(S) No.1326/2©09 (Premlal Sarthi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Othere). The fact that the identical issue was considered in ottier matter has not been made out< The writ petitionwas considered on the facte of the case as well as on the basis of materials placed on record. 4, There Js no other ground pointed out by the pe^ioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice, any new fects which could not be produced earlier despite diltgent efiforts made by the petitioner It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedjngs are not by way of an appeai and have to be strictty confined ^^^ ""y] ^^/"./ ^) ^^.- ^' to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil ProGedure. Even in exercise of review jyrisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constttution, the appilicants have not produc©<3 any ground for review. It appears that the petitioner by presentatton of this review petition seetes an opporhjnity to argue the entire caseafresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenabte in taw. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, ttie applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh wrtiteh would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable In law. (See : Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Cohwdhary1, Uly Thomas etc. v. Union of IndJa and others2, Ajtt Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others3, Govemment of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others4, and Keria State Etectricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & HydropowerLtd.and others8.). In view of the foregoing, the review petition Ss dismlssect. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Gowri 1 AIR 1995 S(Pt55 2 AIR2000 SC1650 3AIR2000SC85 4 (2005)28cc 332 5 (2005)68cc 651