b (/ IN HON'BLE HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 4 OF 2010 PETITIONER [APPLICANT[ Harishankar Manjhi, S/o Shri Pandit Ram Manjhi, aged about 48 years,. Occupation: Ex-Head Constable No.288, ei< Transprt Check-post Patekohra, Tahsil- .ft.^3":,,^SWt .1 ^s^eatt''".,...; ^a...--'-""^V RESPONDENTS Dongergarh, District-Rajnandgaon (C.G.] VERSUS • [NON-APPLICANTl : 1) State of Madhya Pradesh, Through: The Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, Bhopal (M.P.) Now State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2) Secretaiy, Department of Transport, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Mantralaya, Bhopal (M.P.) Now Secretary, Department of Transport Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^ T^V.o-l 3) (6epug> Inspector General of Police, ^ Raipui-Range, Raipur (C.G.) 4) Superintendent of Police, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) tk' co APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 01- 12-2009 PASSED IN WP(S) N0.1860/05 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 19 OF 2010 Petitioner Applicant Respondents Non-applicants Versus Harishankar Manjhi State ofMadhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others ^\r •ff^ Post for pronouncement ofjudgment & order on ^Sday of February, 201 1 Sd/- Satish K. Judge n ^ -' 1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 19 OF 2010 Petitioner Applicant Respondents Non-applicants Versus Harishankar Manjhi State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) & Others APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2009 PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0.1860/2005 (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satish K.Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Dy. Advocate General for the State. (Delivered on this <?5. day of February, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner, seeks review of the order dated 1.12.2009 passed in writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1860/2005 [Harishankar Manjhi v. State of M.P. (now Chhattisgarh) & Others] on the ground that the fact that the petitioner was not relieved on 30.3.1996, could not be explained properly at the time of hearing. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the subsequent documents namely; letters of the petitioner dated 16.9.1996 to the AdditionalRegional Transport Officer, letter dated 9.9.1997 to the Superintendent of Police, Raipur, further letter dated 26.9.1997 to the 'Superintendent of Police, Raipur, letter dated 6.10.1997 addressed to . the Director General of Police, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, and letter dated 5.5.1998 addressed to the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Durg, clearly indicate that the petitioner was never relieved from his post. In the letter dated 5.5.1998, it is stated that the petitioner submits that the letter dated 30.3.1996 which was sent to the petitioner by registered post was not received, as the petitioner 3. 4. was in Hospital. In the letter dated 5.5.1998, the petitioner states that "he has been relieved on 30.3.1996 exparfe". Having regard to the above stated facts, 1 have considered the aforesaid letters, which according to the petitioner could not be brought into the notice of the Court, when the writ petition was heard. This does not change the fact, as all these letters are written by the petitioner to the officers. There is no other documentof the respondent authorities. Perusal of Annexure R-2 & R-3 filed along with the return to the writ petition clearly indicates as under: "cfrliild^ 4Rc|g'rl STTgcRT, 'FIsra^T 'c||l[$|li<i '/2144/^/A^ft./96 'c||Rli|<; •f^Tfcl; 25.03.96 //sn^r // ITETR 3TRgIc|i gfo|ch<i iffgft-288 ^f nf^Tgf^T IN (ft;T c^ ij4 -gT^ -^ •EPTCOT tTtt|?M WW ^ ^f^RT 'l.teyid'y 'cTTq^ft ~^\ uIKft t ^r/^rA SffgcRT ^coTcpl 5CTra»/2144-y/^/A^ft./96 j4ir?l^<!, f^TTcp 25.03.96 yRiRiR- f5ra' Trf^rcr ^o '^1, 4Rcig'i 'qsra^T '?TRT:T 'q^TreT ciit STR' 'c^n' ^RT8} [ 2 yys 'aRiq, i^y^i '?TRT;T, ^ Rclg'l f^*lFT, qroTlT 1TER, •'^TKf q?r grl? ^FIT^I 3. ''OT ^f^RT *1^lPt^l+ (tRTNR), T^V i^lv}^, IT^TM clft 3TR 'g^FTpt T^ 3ira?qcp ch|4c||^l ^ | 4. d44Rc|g'1. STTgcRT (fl^/f^T) 'iqif^TER/lfpTOT cf?t STt? ^q^T'TT^I 5. ^N 4Rc|^T1 3rf6rcRTft. ..........,.....................c|?t 3TR crii4qiel %gi 6. 3n?^"T 1?? ^ff^tRTT SlfSRnft, ^iistlldi) •cf^ afR ^T'TT^ ^T cbl4c|l^l ^l 7. 3TEftgR;(H?ITO/H^)l 8. 4Rc|^-j SITgERr 'c& •it^Tr/^TTgcR]' (H^/H?ITO) ^ ^ff ^T SJW ^RTafl 9. ^NfSftT TTETr'T STRSTEp gR^I+'; tfRft, ^R 41^+lg'il, fuIcIT-^lul-flti'IN ^V 3TR ^FTT^I 3 10. TT*tT?F SlfSrEpT^, 'qfel?'? tRlR 4l^*lg'<l f§TcTT 'ilul'liq'l'iq c|5T 3TR ^T'ffS^ T^f 3TTER!Tcp cM^cll^l ^ '?r€t/4RcigTi sTrgcR]- SFTOa?0-167/97 29.03.96 Theissue asto whether the petitioner was served relieving order dated 30.3.1996 was also considered in the enquiry report and it was found that the letter was duly served at the residence of the petitioner. It is not a case, wherein the new facts, which were in existence, could not be brought into the notice of the Court, despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. The above-stated documents were considered in the writ petition and appropriate order was passed. It appearsthat the applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on meritsunder the grab ofthe review petition which is not permissible and tenable in. It is well settled principle of law that under the grab of review petition, the applicant 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: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nimal Kumar Chowdhary , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and other2, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. & others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others and Kerla State Electhcity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others ). 1 AIR 1995 SC 455 2AIR2000SC1650 3AIR2000SC85 4(2005)2SCC332 5 (2005) 6 SCC 651 •ss"^, For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no error apparent on the face of records, which changes the findings recorded in the order dated 1.12.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No.1860/2005. 8. In view of foregoing, the review petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order astocosts. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ashok