Review No.31/2008 – Dalpat Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Order dt.7.11.08 1/2 S.B. CIVIL REVIEW/RECALLING APPLICATION NO.31/08 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1760/2005 Date of order : 7th November, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. P.P. Choudhary for the applicant. --------- 1. This review petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by a 14 pages judgment rendered by this Court on 29th January, 2008 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioners on the ground that policy decision of the State Government with regard to distribution of water depends upon the technical evaluation by the authorities of department and, therefore, the same cannot be interfered with. This judgment was rendered relying upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in case of Jarnel Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (1992) (1) RLR 264 and Avtar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.273/2007 and 25 special appeals decided on 21.3.2007 with the relevant extract quoted in the judgment itself. 2. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners in the present review petition is that there were as many as 9 prayers made in this writ petition and all of them should have been adjudicated upon separately and in absence of the same, the judgment under review deserves to be recalled. 3. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners does not impress this Court at all. This was not a civil suit in which 9 Review No.31/2008 – Dalpat Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Order dt.7.11.08 2/2 issues were framed by the Court which were required to be decided separately on the basis of evidence led by the plaintiff. On the contrary, the decision of the Court clearly indicates that in such technical matters the Court cannot interfere. Therefore, there was no question to decide all the prayers of the petitioners separately as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is needless to say that the scope of the review is very limited and unless apparent error in the judgment is pointed out no interference is required in the review petition. No such error is found by this Court in the judgment under review. 4. The review petition is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.1 babulal/-