/ STT13T il-/ !«hi kT< .'.u." Petitioners Respoadents RA-MKISHORE DL'BEY & Others. >fCl sarh & Others. ^ p Post for order /$~/'10/2007 Sd/- Satish K. Agi Judge ^_ Ti' FT.r^TJ ^'•^JIJST -1^3-a i^<Lyt/'l%.l. 1. Ramkisbore Dubev S/o Shri Radolal Dubev, Aged about 38 years, Upper Division Clerk. 2. Motilal Venna S/'o. Shri Ram Balak Veniia @ Ram Palak Vemia, Aged about 53 years Lower Division Clerk. Chintaram Sahu Aged about 43 years. All employees of Chhattisgarh Adhoraclma Vikas Nigam (Parivahan Vibhag) Shasti-i Chow.fc, Raipur (C.G.) ;?. >US NTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through: Secretar\', Transport Department Govt. of Chhattisgarh Maiitralaya D.K.S. Bhawaii, GE Road Raipur (C.G.) 2. Chhattisgarh Adhosarchana Vikas Nigain (Parivahan Vibhag) Shastri Chowk Raipur (C.G.) 3. Madhya Pradesh State Transport Corporation M.P. Road Transport Coq?oration Head Office - Habib Ganj Bhopal (M.P.) Tlirough Managiiu APPLICATION FOR_REVTE^LQF THE ORDER DATED 02.05.2006 PASSED D4 WRIT PETITION N0. 1336/2003. Present: Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for fhe petitioDers Shri Sumesh Bajaj, GoveiTtment Advocate forthe Stats Shri Sameer Sahu, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate forthe respondent No. 3. (Passed on day ofOctober, 200Tj TThe petitioners seek review ofthe order dated 02.05.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 1336 of 2003 (Ram Kishore Dubey & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others) on flie followine srounds, as stated in the petition: "That, the petitioners beg to file fhis review petition for review of order dated 02.05.2006 passed iii W.P. No. 1336 of2003 on following grounds: \i;.. (a) DOCTMNE OF DISCRETION TO DISOBfi'Y, (1974) 2 SCC 121: AIR 1974 SC 1471 Vs. The State ofGujrat (b) Ttie srror offace ofRecord. As per Annesaire P/8 the Fmancial Adviser had no powers to issue Inter- Division -Traiisfer order ofthe petitioners." The petitioners have aot shown any en-or appareat on the face of tlis judginent and order dated 02.05.2006 which is sought to be reviewed in tliis petition. The petitioners have cot fdrther raised ground that there has been discoverv ofnew facts Vt'hich was alreadv availahle before fhe decision ofthe writ petition and tlie petitioners could not obtam the same, despite due The petitioners have not fartlier shown anv other reasons for review of tlie judginsnt aiid orderpassed on 02.05.2006 excepts as mentioned above. TSie grounds pointed out hereinabove have aiready been considered ia the main petition. The petitioners, by way ofthis petition, intend to seek re- hearing offhe ease which has already been heard aad decided. The petitioaers have not pointed out any mamfest error ia tlie record and the petitioners have not farther brought iiito the notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioners. It is well settled prineiples of lavv' fhat the review proceedings are not by way of aii appeal and have to be strictly eonfined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code ofCivil Procedure, even in exercise ofreviewjurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. Tlie petitioners have. s£s^ ^.< ^ &. not producsd aay new ground for review, except the same ground which has been considered and decided infhe writ petition. Prmciple of law is well settled by several judicial pronoiincements of tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofSmt. Meei-a Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary , Lily Thomas, etc. Vs. Union of India and others , Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa aiid others , Govemment of T.N. and othei-s Vs. M.Aiianchu Asari and others , and Kerla State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd and others . 7. Applyiag the well settled principles of law to the pfesent case, fhere is no ground available for review ofthe order dated 02.05.2006 under the garb of tlie review pstition, the petitioners seek an opportunity to argue the entire case aiTesh w.'hich would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal '\.. and the same is not sustaitiable in law. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review appiication is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge