IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.275 of 2009 Haridwar Pandey, Advocate aged about 82 years, S/o Late Ram Dutt Pandey, Resident of Laxmi Bhawan, Patliputra Colony, P.S. Patliputra, Patna – 800013 ….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Vigilance Commissioner, Bailey Road, Patna 2. Sri D.P.Ojha, the then Director General, Vigilance, Bihar, 6 Circular Road, Patna 3. Sri Prakash Rai the then Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna 4. Sri P.P.Singh, the then Special P.P.Vigilance, Civil Court, Patna ……………………………… Opposite Parties. ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Haridwar Pandey ( in person) For the Opp.Party: Mr. C.M.Chaurasia, Spl P.P., Vigilance. ----------- 6. 21.4.2010 Heard the petitioner who is appearing in person and learned counsel for the Vigilance. The petition has been filed for review of the order dated 26.8.2009 passed in MJC No. 1381/2003 in which non-compliance of the order dated 27.3.1991 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2368 of 1991 had been alleged. The said MJC had originally been filed as a Cr. W.J.C. No. 87/2002 but subsequently converted into a contempt application. The review of a contempt application can only be granted in a rare case as contempt is essentially a matter between the Court and the contemners. In the present matter I find that the order dated 26.8.2009 was 2 passed mainly considering the fact that for non- compliance of the order dated 27.3.1991 claiming non- compliance of the order dated 27.3.1991 the petitioner had earlier filed I.A. No. 632/98 in Cr.W.J.C. No. 483/98 and the said Criminal writ petition along with I.A.No. 632/98 were together considered and disposed of by this Court by order dated 23.9.1998 dismissing both the criminal writ petition and the interlocutory application. This Court in the said order had dealt in detail the entire matters and did not find non-compliance of the order dated 27.3.1991 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2368/91. That being so there was no occasion for this Court to come to a different finding in the subsequent contempt application. In the present review application, the petitioner claims that Cr.W.J.C. No. 483/98 in which the order dated 23.8.98 was passed and the Cr.W.J.C. No. 87/2002 which was converted into contempt application in which the present order has been passed, contained entirely different prayers. The issue is not that Cr.W.J.C. No. 483/98 contained a different prayer but I.A. No. 632/98 filed therein prayed for exactly the same non-compliance 3 of the order dated 27.3.1991 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 2368/91 as is clear from the very first paragraph of the order dated 23.9.98 passed in Cr.W.J.C.No. 483/98 with I.A. No. 632/98. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any substance in the submission of the petitioner that the two matters were entirely different. The entire submissions of the petitioner have been made to show that he has been falsely implicated in the criminal case on account of a conspiracy between the Vigilance Department and others. The said issue does not arise for consideration while considering an application for contempt against certain persons with respect to an order of the Court. Those issues may be of relevance, if at all, in the trial which is pending. An application for review can only be entertained if there is discovery of new and important matters in evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the earlier order was passed or if there is some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. This Court does not find that any such new or important matter has come 4 up from the time when the contempt application was earlier heard and dismissed by the order sought to be reviewed nor the petitioner was able to show any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The order having been passed taking into account the earlier decision of this Court on an interlocutory application filed in a Criminal writ petition, there was no occasion for this Court to come to a different conclusion and hold that the contemners were guilty of having committed contempt of this Court. In the aforesaid view of the matter, this Court does not find any merit in the review application and it is accordingly dismissed. S. Pandey ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)