HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Review Petition No. 1 of 2009 APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 15.9.2008 PASSED IN WRIT PETITIONJC) NO. 3449/2007 (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri R. K. Kesherwani, Advocate for the applicant. Shri Arvind Dubey Panel Lawyer for the respondents No 1 & 2. Shri Raje? Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.3; O R D E R (Passed on this 25th day of February, 2009) The applicant/respondent No.3 seeks review of the order dated 15m September, 2008, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3449 of 2007 ( Smt. Yogini Bai Kashyap Vs. State of Chhattisgarh 8L others), on several grounds. The applicant basically seeks review on the grounds stated in paragraphs 6 8s 7 of the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the non~applicant No.3/petitioner had not deposited the requisite membership fees as per the byelaws of the committee but this Court in the order dated 15m September, 2008 in para 6 has observed that “the petitioner and other elected members as well as the members who Applicant Smt. Shanta Bai Kashyap, aged 26 yrs (wrongly (Respondent mentioned Smt. Shanti Bai Kashyap) W/o Shri No.3) Manohar Lal Kashyap,‘R/o Village — Kamta, Post— Borda, Tehsil — Navagarh, District ~— Janjgir— Champa C.G. Versus Non‘ 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through — The Secretary, applicants Department of Commerce 85 Industries, (Respondent Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (0G,) No.1) Respondent 2. The Registrar, Firms 85 Societies, Chhattisgarh, O— No.2 5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur Petitioner 3. St. Yogini Bai Kashyap, W/o Shri Govind Ram Kashyap, Aged about 26 years, R/o Village — Kamta, Post~ Borda, Tehsil Navagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) participated in the election process were proper members of the society after having paid the requisite fee”. Learned counsel further submits that the non—applicant No.3/petitioner had never raised objection with regard t the fact that pending appeal became infructuous on the ground that the election process was completed on 25.2.2007. On going through the order dated 15th September, 2008 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 3449 of 2007 it is clear that in para 5 of the order, the submission of Shri R. K. Kesharwani (learned counsel appearing for the present applicant) was recorded regarding copletion of election process and non—raising of that ground by the writ petitioner, as also that the members elected were not having the primary membership of the society. In the next para of the order i.e. para 6 the submission made by Ms. Chhatterjee (learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner), in reply to the submission made by Shri R. K. Kesharwani (recorded in para 5 of the order) was recorded that “In rejoinder, Ms Chhatterjee would submit that the petitioner and other elected members as well as the members who participated in the election process were proper members of the society after having paid the requisite fee and the same has already been taken on record by the Assistant Registrar.” The submission as recorded above is on the basis of Annexure P/5 and challan for payment of the same (page 39 and 24 of the writ petition paper book) After recording the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 (present applicant) and the o m WwWWWWwW \ x xw submission made by learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner (non-applicant No.3 herein this review petition), in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order, as above, this Court in para 7 of the order held as underz~ “7. Thus, the fact that the President and other members were not the primary members cannot be adjudicated upon in this proceedings as the same has been accepted by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies. No member including 3rd respondent has challenged the same before any statutory forum or before this Court.” The main writ petition was allowed and the order dated 21.5.2007 (Annexure P/7) was quashed, holding that “Once duly democratically elected body has come into existence, if any grievance survives, the best forum may be filing of election petition before the appropriate authority”. In View of the above marshaling of facts and situation of the case and the discussion made hereinabove, l do not find any merit in this review petition. The applicant has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the applicant has not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the applicant. It is well settled principles 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 Constitution, the applicant has not produced any new ground for review. The applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the T W M “MWWKM garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. 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 Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdharyl, Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and otherszt Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others4 and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm 85 Hydropower Ltd., and others5. As a result and in View of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sdl- Satish K. Agnii‘iotri Judge ‘AIR 1995 SC 455 2 AIR 2000 so 1650 3 AIR 2000 sc 85 4 (2005) 2 scc 332 5 (2005) e sec 651 WW... . a _