§fg \(Ff \ ’ .- IL \2 my Review Petition No. 53 of 2009 Peu’tioners 1. Radhiya Bai, aged about 36 years, W/o Late Mayaram Gond (Adivasi). 2. Anita Bai, aged about 17 years, D/o Late Mayaxam Gond (Adivasi) 3. Rakesh Kumar, aged about 15 years, S/o Late Mayaram Gond (Adivasi) 4. Rohit Kumar, aged about 13 years, S/o Late Mayaram Gond (Adivasi) Petitioner No.2 to 4 being minor through there mother Smt. Radhiya Bai, W/o Late Mayaram Gond (Adivasi) A11 R/o Village Sendri, Tahsil and Thana Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon. Versus Respondents 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through its Seoietary, Tribal Welfare Department, D K S Bhawan, Raipur. 2. The Collector, Rajnandgaon. 3. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ansuchit Jati Kalyalaya (Aa Ja K), Rajnandgaon. 4. Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Depa11ment, Rajnandgaon. 5. Commissioner, Tribal Welfare Deparunent, Raipur. (Application for Review of the ordex dated 1.10.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2598/2007) Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the respondents. ORDER (oral) (Passed on this 10th day of July, 2009) Heard. I.A.No. 1 is ordered, as prayed for. Delay is condoned. l. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 1.10.2008, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2698 of 2007 ( Radhiya Bai & others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh 8:. others), with the prayer to direct the respondents] authorities that the pen'tioners are entitled to all the reliefs as provided under the Madhya Pradesh/ Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Evam Janjati (Akashmikata Yojana) Niyam, 1995 (for short “the Rules, 1995). Aw”e, / W7 This Court by order dated 1.10.2008, passed in W.P.(C)N . ‘ 2698 of 2007, having examined the mattbr in detail, held that the patitioners are €ntit1ed to relief under the provisions of Rule 7 clause 20 of the Rules, 1995, The petition was allowed to that extent. Thereaftsr, the petitioners $ed the Review Petition N9. 50 of 20W, wki-h , e:-\:_,;_ssed as withdrawn on 24.11.2008. The submission of leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the above review petition was Withdrawn as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to all the reliefs, as once it has been held that the beneiit of Rule 1995 is to be extended to the petitioners. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for grant of relief to the respondents] authorities, as per the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2698/2007 by order dated 1.10.2008. The respondents/authorities by letter dated 24.1.2009 only paid Rs. 2,00,0001— to the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners have filed this review petition for a direction that they are entitled to all the reliefs in accordance with the Rules, 1995. The submission of Shri Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Review Pen'tion No. 50/2008 was withdrawn, as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to all the reliefs, is misconceived. The petitioners cannot read more than the words recorded in the order. The order dated 24. 11.2008 reads as under “Leained counsel appean'ng for the petitioners, on instinctions, seeks permission of this court to withdraw this review petition. 2} It is ordered as prayed for. A dismay/s, f , 3} Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn.” The Supreme Court in state of Maharwhtra V3. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and anotherl observed as under : “4. ...... We are a&aid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what hanspired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public policy ham us. Judicial decorum restrajns us. Matters of judicial reconi are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the mena. Judgments cannot be treated as mem counters in the game of litigation. We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpimd in Comt. We cannot allow the statement of the Judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by a&davit and other evidence. If the Judges say in their judgment that something was drawn, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The pn'nciple is well settled that statements of facts as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the Court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can conuadict such statements by amdavit or other evidence.” 6. The dictum as laid down above, was approvingly referred in Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd. and others? and Jagvir Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)3. 7. The prayer and the grounds mentioned in the review petition appear to be misconceived. If the petitioners have any grievance of whatsoever nature, they may approach appropriate forum that may be available to them under provisions of law. 8. The petitioners have not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the petitioners have not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier 1 (1982) 2 see 4&3 2 (2003) 2 sec 1‘11 3 (2007) 5 sec 359 despite diligent eE‘oxts made by the pditionem. It is well settled principles of law that the revicw proceedings are not by way an appeal and have to be strictly conmed to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedule. Even in exemise of xeview jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the peu'tioners have not produced any ground for review. It appears that the petin'oners by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case anesh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled pn'nciple of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case anesh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. ( See Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdhary", Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and others5, Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others5, Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others7 and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electiothermiesm &. Hydmpower Ltd., and others3. 10. As a result and in View of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/— Satish K. Agniiaotri Judge 4 AIR 1995 so 455 5 6 AIR 2000 SC 1650 AIR 2000 SC 85 7 (2005) 2 SCC 332 s (2005) 6 SCC 851 o