-,\ 'ww f^i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS REVIEW PETITIQN No. 42 of 2008 Radheshyam Das Ex Sarpanch S/o Bastmdas, aged about 40 years, R7o Gram Panchayat, Chattigirola Tehsil : Saraipali, District : Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. Respondent number 4 in W.P (227) of 3106/2008 VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Panchayat DKS Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh. Respondent number 1 in W.P (227) of 3106/2008 2. Director, Panchayat Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent number 2 in W.P (227) of 3106/2008 3. The Collector, Mahasamund, District: Mahasamund Chhattisgarh] Respondent number 3 in W.P (227) of 3106/2008 4. Mahendra Budek, Aged about 35 years, S/o Shri Shivratan R7o Village Chatti.girola Tahsil Saraipali, District Mahasamund. Chhattisgarh .Petitioner in W.P (227) of 3106/2008 REYIEWJPETITIQN ^UNDER THE INHERENT PLENARY JURISDICTION OF THEJJON'BLE COURT (BY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. ORDER (Passed on 15th day ofSeptember, 2008) 1. The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of Sub Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Ru'es, 2007. 2. The review petitioner i.e. the respondent No. 4 in W.P.(227) No. 3106/2008 seeks a review of the judgment and order dated 11 August, 2008 passed in ,'y j^ "'"iatk,. ./'^•^h ^-^—^ «a ^S^S^Sf •.* ^^l:-^. ^ ''*^f.:'-:^y^^.^^--'^ ^ %.,J^y M • W.P.(227) No. 3106/2008 (Mahendra Budek v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), on the grounds that the case has not been considered in proper perspective as the case was not a case of 'repeal' of section 36(l)(m) of the Chhattisgaih Panchayat Raj Avam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1993), but 'omission' of section 36(l)(m) of the Act, 1993 by Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj (Amendment) Act, 2008 (hereinafter refen-ed to as the 'Amendment Act, 2008'). The main contention of the review petitioner is that it was not a case ofrepeal but omission. Therefore, there is error apparent on the face ofrecords. 3. Thejudgment and order dated 11.8.2008 passed in W.P.(227) No. 3106/2008 has considered all the aspects ofthe matter relying on several latest decisions passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is well settled principle oflaw that ifthere are two contradictory decisions, the latest decision shall be binding. The same is normally passed after considering the earlier decisions. 4. This Court, in the matter ofKanhaiya Lal Mehar v. High Courl of Chhattisgarh , observed as under: "14. By this review petition, the petitioner seeks a fresh hearing of the case on altogether new grounds which are impermissible in law. The ;rounds which are neither raised nor argued in the writ petition should also not be pennitted to be raised before the appellate authority. The judgment and order dated 05.12.2006 has considered all the points raised and argued in the course of hearing at length and there is no error apparent on the face ofthe record. 15. The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the petitioner has not further brought iato the notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the 2007(2) CGU 326 B~F ..•y e^ Constitution. The applicant has not produced any new ground for review, except the same ground which has been considered and decided in the writ petition." 5. Further, in the matter ofS.R.Chavan v. Cement Corporation oflndia amlothers , this Court has observed as under: "7. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law (See Smt. Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union oflndia and others, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State ofOrissa and others, Government of T.N. and others v. M.Ananchu Asari and others and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropo-wer Ltd. andothers)" 6. The Courts while construine ongoin.g statute must take into consideration the changes in the societal conditions. It would be a relevant fact. (See Satyawati Sharma v. Union of India). For the purpose of giving an effective and meaningful construction to the provisions, the Court is bound to take into consideration the situational change. The statute is an ongoing one. (See Kashmir Singh v. Union oflndia and others pg. 273, 276paras 55 c6 68). 7. So far as the meaningful expression of a word in a statute is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Tamilnadu Electricity Board & another v. Statiis Spinning Mills Ltd. and another observed as under: "26.....A word cannot be assigned a meaning in vaccum. Ithas to be read in the contest in which it has been used. A decision which has been rendered on a different Act dealing with a different subject-matter may not be apposite while construing the same term in another statute..." 22008(1)CGLJ519 J (2008) 5 SCC 287 , 4 (2008) 7SCC 259 -^—^200817SCC 353 / -7 8. This court, while considering the scope ofthe review petition relying on several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred inatters, has held that the review petitioner cannot be pemiitted to argue the entire case afresh which would taatainouiit to converting review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 9. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. —__-__ Sd/- Sarish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit