1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition No.23/2010 In D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.745/2002 (State of Rajasthan Vs. N.K.Dalal & Ors.) Date of Order ::: 5th May, 2010 Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Jagdish Bhalla Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.N. Bhandari Mr. N.K.Dalal, review petitioner-respondent No.1 present in person. By this Court: By this petition, review of the order dated 30.03.2010 has been sought. The review petitioner is present in person submits that date of incidents for determining the period of four years has wrongly taken as 13.01.1987 whereas it was 02.12.1986. The other argument raised herein is that prior to issuance of the charge sheet, sanction of the Government had not been sought and aforesaid grounds was raised in the writ petition. In view of aforesaid, the order dated 30.03.2010 deserves to be reviewed. We have considered the submissions made by petitioner present in person. 2 After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, it has come out that bid on higher price was accepted on 12.01.1987 (mentioned as 13.01.1987 in the judgment), which was the cause of revenue loss to the Government, thus aforesaid was taken as date of incidents. In view of aforesaid, it cannot be said that incident took place on 02.12.1986. So far as the other argument is concerned, perusal of the writ petition does not show that the fact regarding issuance of charge sheet without sanction of the Governor was pleaded in the fact though the grounds may have been raised. Looking to the record made available to us, it was found that Governor had granted sanction before issuance of the charge sheet. In view of aforesaid, even if the facts would have been pleaded in the writ petition, the record shows that due sanction was granted by the Governor before issuance of the charge sheet. In view of aforesaid discussion, no ground is made out for seeking review, accordingly the present review petition is dismissed. It is, however, ordered that date mentioned as 13.01.1987 may be taken as 12.01.1987 in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The typographical error is accordingly corrected. 3 The review petitioner present in person submits that he is at the age of 78 years and without pension, it would be difficult for him to survive. It is stated that punishment so inflicted against him is quite harsh and the aforesaid aspect has not been considered. If that is so then it would be open for the review petitioner to make a representation to the State Government/His Excellency the Governor. It goes without saying that if any such representation is made, then the State Government/His Excellency the Governor would consider and decide the same by a speaking order. (M.N. Bhandari), J. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. Item No.10 Preety/Jr.P.A.