I_N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR Aw M.C.C. No r 2005 Division Bench filaETITIONERs Chhat’usgarh State Co Operatlve ‘ Marketlng Federatlon Ltd Ralpur through the Secretary, Ralpur (C G ) VERSUS RESPONDENT 1. // R.S. Dwivedi, S/o. Shri Triloki Nath, aged about 62 years, Ex— Deputy Manager, M.P. State AV marketing Federation Bhopal REVIEW PETITION FOR REVIEW OF oRnnR DATED 10- 8 2005 PASSED IN w P No 1¢45/2001 (R s DWIVEDI —V- M P STATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LTD. BHOPAL AND OTHERS) Posted at Divisional Manager Office, Bilapsur, R/o. Jarahabhata, Bilaspur 2 1/ M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., I>\\ Bhopal g} K 3 Chairman .1 M.P. State Cooperative i A Tribunal, Bhopal (M.P.) f 4. Additional Registrar, Presiding ' Officer, Court of Registrar Cooperative Societies,Bhopal MP CORAM : MISCM ,V Hon’ble-Mr. L.C. Bhadoo, J. : DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO AND HON’BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, JJ. Versus ~ R,S, Dwivedi and otlwrs w ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION y sw— ' Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ‘ POST FOR 2 —8-2006 Sd/- SaEish K. Agnihot‘ri Judge “N HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE NO.224 OF 2005 Chhattisgarh State Co-operativc Marketing Federation Ltd., Raipur ‘ W HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM : HON’BLE MR. L.C. BHADOO AND HON’BLE MR. SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, JJ. i\ MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL CASE N0.224 OF 2005 Petitioner Chhattisgarh Smte Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd., Raipur Versus R.S‘ Dwivedi and others Present : Dr. N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with Mr. AKYadav, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yashwant Tiwari, counsel for respondent No. l. ORDER ’(Passed on 1"4-8-2006) Per Satish K. AgnihotrL J. : By this review application, Chhattisgarh State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Raipur seeks review of the order dated 10-8-2005 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.1445/2001 (RSDwivedi vs. M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd. Bhopal and others) to the extent that respondent @ : No.2 — M.P. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhopal alone be made liable to make the payment of 50% of back wages and other allowances as per order dated 10-8-2005. 2. The review petitioner seeks review on the ground that respondent No,l (the writ petitioner) was terminated hom services on 22-6-1 992 and he was reinstated in service on 10-9-1 996. The claim of his back wages for the said period has to be discharged by respondent No.2 — MP. State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd, Bhopal, and the review petitioner was not liable to make the payment of back wages to respondent No.1 (the writ petitioner). The issue was raised in the hearing of the writ petition and aher consideration, the same was rejected by a direction to the effect that the review petitioner and respondent No.2 are liable to make the payment of 50% of back wages and other allowances within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. Respondent No.2 had preferred a special leave petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court impugning the order dated 10-8-2005, sought to be reviewed, in Special Leave Petition (C.) . No.22887/2005. The same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 21-1 1-2005. 3. It is ‘well settled principle of law that review is not maintainable if it seeks rehearing of the case in the guise of review / \ @J v?” application. In the present case, the review petitioner is in fact seeking reheating of the case. Review is maintainable only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, i.e., on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, alter the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, and/or there is error apparent on the face ofthe record and it may be exercised on any analogous ground also; The same is not maintainable on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merit, which is the province of an appeal. In the present ease, respondent No.2 —— M.P, State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd., Bhopal has already questioned the correctness of the order, sought to be reviewed, in this application, in the special leave petition filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C.) No.22887/2005, and the same was dismissed. 4. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Satyanaravan Laxminarayan Hegde vs. Mallikariun Bhavanappa Tirumale, . AIR 1960 SC 137 has made following observation in respect of error apparent on the face ofthe record : - “An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is ”\c far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.” This observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has been approved subsequently in Lily Thomas, etc. vs; Union of India and other§, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Aiit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others, renorted in” AIR 2000 SC 85: Kerala State Electricig Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydrogwer Ltd. and others, reported in (2005)_§ SCC 651. 5. In the instant case, the review petitioner has not pointed out any error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of a new document, which could not be made available after the exercise of due diligence or any analogous ground. The review petitioner 1s seeking rehearing of the case on merit which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. 6. For the reasons stated above, the review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. / , \ Sit/- SatishK. Agniiaotri Judge i r Sd/- L.C.BHADOO Judge Gopal I a _. >\