IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. l O 2- /2011 {ArisinR out ofthe obseryatioiLdated 25.07.2011 made bv Hon?ble the Supreme Court of India in SLP (Q No. 10678/2011) PETITIONERS „—• ,^R^-< ^•<-:"" 'Oat^^^l ^ : 1. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., A Registered Company, Registered Office at G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai-400051, Branch Office at Indian Oil Bhawan ^.^ Divisional Office, VIP Road, Telibandha, Raipur (CG). 2. The Executive Director (Retail Sales) Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Indian Oil Bhawan, G-9, Ali Yavar Jang Marg, Bandra East, Mumbai (Maharashtra) Pin-400051. 3. Senior Divisional Retail Sales Manager & Coinstituted Attorney Branch Office at Indian Oil Bhawan, Divisional Office, VIP Road, Telibandha, Raipur (CG). ^t^ ^y-^ ^) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Mahamaya Service Centre, Through: Proprietor, Kailash Kumar Khetan S/o. Shri Natthu Lal Khetan, Aged about 31 years R/o. Khetan Medical Hall, Hospital Chowk, Sakti, Dist.: Jajngir-Champa (CG). REVIEW PETITION AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2010 PASSED INWPfC) N0. 1668/2009 -. /'" 1> :: \ lil'" ^ HTGH COIJRT OF CHHATnSOARH AT BI1 A8PIJR REVIEW PETIT01N No. 102 of2011 PETmONERS Isidia-n Oil Corporatioii Lt.A.& CXhers^ VRRSIJ8 Mahamaya Ser^ice Centre. RE8PONDENTS . : RRVTRW PRTITION ACrATNST 7BRORDER DATRD 09.09.2010 PAJSSED IN \V.P.i/QNo. 1668/2009. SB: Hon'WeShri SatishK. Agniliotri,.!. Pre?sent: Dr, N.K.Shukla, Senior Advocate with P.S.Koshy and Shri N.N.Roy, Advocates forthe petitiosiCTS. Shri Prateek Sharma, Advoeate forthe Caveator/respondent. O R D R R (Passed.osi 04 day ofNovember, 2911) 1, The p.etitioHCTs, by t.he insta.nt review petition seeks^review ofthe order dated 09.09.2010 (Aimexiire A/9) passed in W.P.(C) No. 1668/2009 (Mahamava Ser^ice Centre v. Indian Oil Corporation & Others), Being aggrieved by the order dated 09.09.2010, the review petitioners preferred an appeal before the leamed Division Bench being W.A. No. 361/2010 (Indwn Oil Corporation Ltd. & Others v.. Mahamaya Service Centre\ The teamed Division Bench, vide jiidgment and order dated 03,01.-2011, dismissed the appeal preferred by the review petitioners. 2, Thereaga-mst the review petitioners preferred a petitioii for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10678/2011 (Jndian Oil Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. Mahamaya Servfce Centre) before Hon'ble fhe Supreme Coiirt. The Hon'ble Sypreme Coiirt granted liberty t.o the petitioners to move the High Cburt for a-ppropriate relief on the reqiiest. of the petitioners, while permitting wit.hdra.wal of the Special Leave Petition, on 25.07.2011. lfc»^< 3. The mstant petition for review ofthe order passed by this Coiirt does not come within the pun/iew of appropriate relief Secondly, once the order passed by the Smgie Judge has been affirmed by a Division Bench m writ appeal, the order passed by the Single Jydge merges with the order passed by the Division Beiich. Thus, no relief ean be granted by this Coiirt in the inst.a.nt review petition. 4. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissedl Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit T'