IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.13 of 2009 Bihar Public Service Commission, through its Public Information Officer, Kumar Uday Shankar Sinha, son of Late C.N.Sinha, Resident of Mohalla-Vednagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, PO B.V. College, P.S. Rukunpura, District- Patna Versus 1. The State Information Commission, through its Joint Registrar, Soochna Bhawan, 4th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Assistant Registrar, the State SIC, Soochna Bhawan, 4th Floor, Bailey Road, Patna 3. Sri Anil Kumar, Bank Colony, Club Road, Ara, District-Bhojpur, Pin Code-802301. with MJC No.211 of 2009 ANIL KUMAR Versus BIHAR PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSIO ----------- 3. 05.08.2009 C. Rev. No. 13/2009: The review application has been filed on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) for review/recall of the judgment and order dated 11.12.2008 passed in CWJC No. 16065/2008 and IA No. 7111/2008. The only ground urged in support of the said prayer for review/recall is that neither the BPSC nor its authorized officer or competent authority had in fact, given any instruction to any of its counsel that the petitioner was willing to supply copies of the two answer books/sheets, for which an undated certificate issued by the Officer on Special Duty, BPSC has been filed as Annexure-15. The objection of the BPSC relates to the submission made by the learned Advocate General, who was appearing on its behalf in the writ petition, that the BPSC is willing to supply copies of two papers as sought for by the respondent no. 3 within a period of 2- - 2 - 3 weeks. On the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General on behalf of the BPSC this Court had, as a matter of fact, allowed the writ petition after quashing the impugned orders passed by the State Information Commission subject to the direction that the BPSC shall supply a certified copy of the answer books demanded by the petitioner, as undertaken by the learned Advocate General on its behalf, within a period of three weeks from the date of the order. Learned counsel for the review-petitioner bases his entire stand on the averments made in para-29 of the review petition along with the certificate of the Officer on Special Duty of the BPSC that no such instruction had been given to the learned Advocate General regarding the willingness of BPSC to supply copies of the two papers. In support of the said stand he submits that any concession on a point of law does not bind the client and it is open to such litigant to agitate legal issue either by way of a review or in the course of appeal. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State Information Commission opposes the said stand on behalf of the review-petitioner and submits that it is not open to the BPSC to raise such issue in a review application as the concession involved in the present matter does not relate to any question of law rather it is with respect to instructions given by the client to its counsel, in this case learned Advocate General himself, who had - 3 - accordingly made the statement before the Court regarding the willingness of the BPSC to supply copies of the answer papers. It is submitted that such concession/statement cannot be a ground for review of the order as it does not fall within any of the categories on which judgment and order of this Court can be reviewed. On a consideration of the entire matter, this Court is in agreement with the submission made by learned counsel for the State Information Commission. The statement made by learned Advocate General, which is duly recorded in the order dated 11.12.2008, as to whether it was made on the instruction received from client or not is a matter between the litigant and his counsel and the same cannot be permitted to be raised as a ground for review of the order. In fact, none of the ingredients for review of a judgment and order have been argued before this Court in the present matter. Merely, on the basis of an affidavit and a certificate by an Officer on Special Duty in the BPSC, this Court cannot accept the said statement vis-à-vis the statement made by the learned Advocate General in Court. In the above circumstances, there being no ground for review of the order dated 11.12.2008, the review application is dismissed. MJC No. 211/2009: As prayed for by learned counsel for the opposite parties, put up the matter on 19th August, 2009. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)