IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Review Petition No. 921 of 2010 In Writ Petition (S/B) No. 223 of 2010 Vinod Kumar Saxena … Review Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the review petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel (Govt. of Uttarakhand) for the respondent. Date of Judgment: 11.11.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) The review petitioner approached this Court being aggrieved by an order of transfer by which he was shifted out from the Headquarters at Dehradun. In the writ petition, it was contended that the said order was passed in as much as there were allegations against the review petitioner in relation to exercise of quasi judicial power by the review petitioner under Section 57 of the Uttarakhand Value Added Tax Act, 2008. While the writ petition was dismissed by the judgment and order under review, the Court observed that the transfer order has no nexus with the orders passed by the review petitioner under Section 57 of the said Act or with the allegations pertaining to such orders. The Court further found, as a fact, that on being so transferred, the review petitioner would not be required to report to a junior. 2. In the present review application, it is being contended that whoever is Additional Commissioner at the Headquarters looking after administrative tax, he is de facto Commissioner and, accordingly, all other Additional Commissioners are required to report to him. No such allegation was made in the body of the writ petition. In the review application also nothing has been brought on record, wherefrom such a conclusion can be arrived at. 2 3. That being the situation, we cannot hold that there is any error apparent on the face of the records. The review application, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 11.11.2010 11.11.2010 Amit