'.. lN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKiM ORDEF] SHEET Review Petition B.p.a.e..V.all.y..Cha`1n..Harketlng System Ltd. & Another Versus No. 01 of 2oo8 Petitioner / Appellant S.t.at.e..9£...S.1kklm..a..O.thers.........Respondent Order with Signature 1, 2 . 6 . 08 Off ice Note as to action (if any) taken c)n Order Present: Mr. S. Malkhandi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. S. Sarkar and Mr. Bijay Rat, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. J.B. Pradhan and Mr. Karma Thinlay, Govt. Advocates for the State-Respondents. This is a review application on the first day of its admission. It is for review of an order passed by us on 14.5.2008. One of the reasons given in the order was that the writ petitioner's alleged licence was not even valid ex facie, apart from there being other doubtful things. Today a review petition is filed stating that the writ petitioners have a valid licence. As Annexure - C to the review. petition a `duplicate' licence is produced dated 15.05.2008, i.e., one day after we passed the order. It is not even stated in the petition that Annexure ~ C is a duplicate. It is also not stated in the petition that the original is misplaced. (These are the submissions made by the learned counsel on behalf of the applicant). ul Serial Date Order with Signature Office Note as to No. of of action (if any) Order Order taken on Order In this type of case which appears to be ®`` , ~` shady, if not extremely shady, the Court should never exercise its discretion in favour of the applicant.Apart from that, none of the pre- conditions for maintainability of a review petition is satisfied here. The application is summarily dismissed with costs assessed to-A- Rs.15'000/-. /:-I.. ;--`^,I- (A.N. ay, CJ)(..ubba,J)