IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.166 of 2009 ANITA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 13.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The present application has been filed for review of the order dated 21.5.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No.12670 of 2008, by which the writ application filed by the writ petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn. The only ground taken by learned counsel for the petitioner for review of the said order is that no instruction was given by the petitioner to her counsel for withdrawing the writ application and without any reason, the same has been withdrawn. The aforesaid ground is certainly not one of the grounds on which the order of this Court can be reviewed. The execution of vakalatnama in favour of a learned counsel means that necessary authority was given to him to withdraw the writ application and accordingly on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner, the same was dismissed as withdrawn. Whether the instruction was given at that stage by the petitioner to her - 2 - counsel or not is a matter between the petitioner and her counsel and this Court does not want to enter into the said issue in the civil review application. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the action of her counsel in withdrawing the writ application, then probably her remedy lay elsewhere; instead of doing that she has chosen to file the review application without any of the grounds on which such an application is maintainable. Sufficient time was granted to learned counsel for the petitioner to satisfy this Court as to whether in a case of this nature, there is any precedent supporting the stand that the order can be reviewed. Learned counsel submits that he is unable to satisfy this Court by citing any precedent on this point. In the above circumstances, the review application is dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. )