EGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU l REVIEW PETITION N6 64 OF 2007 l PETITIONER ' : 1. Shankar Aged about 27 years S/o Gorelal .Kapoor SmgH Dapahal Post ChJrrmrl Dlst i - Korea (CG) 2. Sun mnalq Ba1 Aged about 42 years W/o‘ Gorelal Kapoor Smgh Daphai Post Chn'mm Dlsv Korea (CG) VERSUS i .ESPONDENTS r: 1. South Eastern Coalfields Lumted Through 1ts \ R K d Chamnan—cum—Managmg Dlrector Seepat i Road Bllaspur (CG) 2. Sub Area Manager, SECL, Chirmiri Opencast * " Mine ChimurfDist-Korea (CG) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 03 02 2006 iN WRIT PETITION NO 2608/2003 BY CIRCULATION. SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ORDER (Passed on 15th‘day ofOctober,'2007) LA No. 1, this,is an applieation for eo‘ndonation of delay. ,SuRieient cause has been shown, The application is ordered as prayed for; ~ This petition Seeks review ofthe order dated 03.02.2006 passed in Writ Petition No‘. 2608 of 2003 (Shankar and another Vs. SECL and another). The petitioners / seek review not on the new grounds but on the same ’go'unds which have earlier been raised and consrdered by this Court This Court, While dlsposmg of the ’petitlon directed the respondents to consrder the case of the petitioner No 1 in accordance With law as applicable at/the time ofamaking the application for ‘ ' appointment on compassionate gound within a periodkof six weeks from the date ofreceiptlproduction of-a copy ofthis order. The ease of the petitioner was considered by the respondent authorities and by ’ order dated 05.05.2006 (Annexure P/3), the respondent authorities refused to i H R ’ rant compassionate appointment to the’p titioner holding that the case was _ - ‘ considered in accordance with law and 'e' petitioner No. 1 was not found eligible being minor at the tirne of death. ofhis fathen. Being aggieved, the petitioner preferred contempt petition being Contempt Pet tion No 144 of 20% The contempt petltion was dismissed on the ground , I that the d1rect1on passed by the Court has already been complled wlth. The petitioners thereaher filed an application recalling the order and mod1fication of the order dated O3 02 2006 bemg MCC' No 538 of 2006 The petitioner withdrew the said application on 09 10 2006 to file reVieW petition Thus this review petition was filed. On perusal of the papers and documents appended thereto, there is no apparent error on the face of records. The petitioners have not pointed out anyf’manifest error in the record and the petitioners have not hirther brought into the notice any new fact which could not V j be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioners. It is well vsettled prinCiples of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal j and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 ofthe ' ‘ _ Code of CiVil Procedure even in exerCise of reView Jurisdiction by the High, V; Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution The applicant has not produced any new ground for review, except the same ground which has been cons1dered and ‘ decided in the writ petition. ' The principle of law is well settled by several judicial pronouncements of the i 'Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. .Meera Bhanjan Vsm§rnt Nirmala ‘ Kim‘rnhmaimy"; Liiy Times, etc Vs. Union or india' and othersz,.iziji " Kuniar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and othersg’, Government of T.N. and others V LMW x izr _ t V ' g ‘M.Ananchu Asari and others", ‘and' Karla State ElectricityrBoalrdVs. Hitgéh Electrothenmés &’ Hympower Lm and others? . V. ‘ 9 1 AIR 1995 SC 455 2 Am 2000 so 1650 3 AIR 2000 sc 35 I .4 (2005) 2 scc 332 . . . 5 (2005) 0 soc 651 r . ‘ . \ . ’ , .. H Amit @ I 7. Applying the Well settled principles oflaw to the present case, there is nov ground available for review order dated 03.02.2006 under the/garb of the review - ofthe petition, the petitioners seek an opportunity to iargue the entire case a&esh Which I 9 \ 1 : and the same is not l wouldpaimount to convert the review petition .iinto an appeal sustainable m law. ii r: 1, ' 8. As a result and in View ofthe foregoing, this rleViewpappli‘cation is dismissed. ’No ‘ ’: l ‘ r _ r " ‘ L order as toeosts. V' wJvfL; ’ “ l ‘ sd/_ . .1 Satish K.Agnihotri lL Judge i.