@^; ^=tg!BSig?g ? ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGAH AT iBILASPUR •^W'CL^ pcAlHfc^e. /^? / 2006 '&s ~° ^^W'? ''• HsSlliJ Petitioner Horilal Sahu, Aged about 45 years S/o Shri k. Sahu R/o Near Ramayan Chowk, Village- Chantidih,District - Bilaspur (C.G.) Respondents Versus :1, ^i€' M^^-"" ^T" ^•"" ^ State of Madhya Pradesh Through the Secretary, Forest Departnient, Goveminent VaUabh Bhawan Bhopal (M.P.) Chief Conservator of Forest, Madhya Pradesh Satpura Bhawan, Bhopal, (M.P.) 3. Conservator of forest, BUaspur (C.G.) ^<Q^~/iT; .--.^" il^'.eS^ 4-. Divisional Forest Officer, s&^' ' ^., ^. ...„., BUaspur, District: Bilaspur, C.G. ^1^ l>- APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER DATED 23.08.2006 PASSED BY HON'BLE JUSTICE S.K. AGNIHOTRI IN W.P. (S) 3; 1120/2005 'SB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BlLASPUR REVIEW PETITIONN0.190F 2006 Petitioner : Horilal Sahu J3 versus Respondents State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhatfisgarh) and others Stai^e Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Affilhotei. I>resent: Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the Petitioner. None appeara for fhe respondents. ORDER (Passed on 31st of October, 2006) 1. The present applicant seeks a review <rf the order dated 23.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition (S.) No. 1120 of 2005 not on the ground that this Court has not considered the fact that the petitioner was carrying his ailing son to the hospital in the intervening night i.e. 7.7.1998 and 8.7.1998, when the accident took place and damage was caused to the Government Vehicle,driven by Uie petitioner. The petitioner has no intention to cause damage to the Government property. Leamed counsel further submits that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is dis-proportionate to the damage caused to the Government property. 2. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, who remain absent during the course of hearing of Writ Petition (S.) No.1120 of 2005 on 23.8.2006. I have further perused the review application and documents appended to the present applicalaon as well as papere of Writ Petition (S.) No.1120 of 2005. The question of award of dis- \.'^ 1^ proportionate punishment has been considered in several decisions cited in the main petition. This Court had perused carefully the said judidal pronouncements while considering the case of the petitioner. This is not a case where it can be held that the punishment awarded is dis-proportionate and it shocks the judicial conscience or is shockingly dis-proportionate. 3. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure andeven in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The applicant has not produced any new ground for review except the same grounds which have been considered and decided in the writ petition. 4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uie cases of V. Ramana vs A.P.SRTC and others after considering all decision on the question of imposition of appropriate punishment observed in para 11 as under:- "11. The common thread running through in atl these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision untess it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in Uie.sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substihjte its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not e decision." 1;-V ^'^-^^G^^tUVW "* '""'"S^kiT-.^^^^^i?*gBS^3St^^^E^E; \^1. ^- 5. Principle of law is well setUed by several judteial pronouncemente of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Smt Afeera Btwnja vs. Smt. Ninnala Kunsri Choudhar^, Lily Thomas, ete. vs. Union of InvSa and others9, Aft Kumar Rath vs. Stete of Orissa and afhers , Govemment of T.N. and athers vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others and Keria State Etec(ric»fyBoard vs. Hitech Electmthennics & Hydmpcxver Ltd. andathers . 6. As a resuN and for the foregoing reasons, this review application is dismissed on the ground that this review application is not in accordance with the requirements for review of an orderas per law and the present review applicant seeks rehearing of the case in the guise of review application, which stands concluded by order dated 23.8.2006 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S.) No.1120 of 2006. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K. Asnihotri Judge 1 (2005) 7 SCC 338 2 AIR 1995 SC 455 3 AIR 20W SC 1650 4 AIR 2000 SC 85 5 (2005) 2 SCC 332 6 (2005) 6 SCC 651 Subhash