'M^:. ,</ c -r' -^" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No^^<O ^3009— ARISING OUT OF W.P. (S) No. 1203/2008 ^^.w ^ -'''.-. ^N^^S^ Sf i^-rfo.-^eA ^' ••..^n ..-^ 'i-l-''- i» •";••• RESPONDENTS PETITIONER Suresh Sai Bhagat ^ S/o Sunder Sai, aged about 41 years holding post of salesm.an in Governinent Excise Liquor Shop at Raigarh Dista-ict Raigarh, resident of village Makaflhuna, Post Bagbahar, Tahsii Pattalgaon Dista-ict Jashpur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. The State of Chhattisgarh through the Commissioner of Excise, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur. 2. The EKcise CoUector Dista-ict Excise Officer Raigarh (C.G.) 3. The Assistant Excise Commissioner, Excise District Raigarh (C.G.) REVIEW OF THE ORDER MADE AGAINST THE PETITIONER PASSED IN WRIT PrTITION (S) No.1203/ 2008 IN MATTER OF SURESH SAI BHAGAT VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS DECIDED ON 03.07.2008 IN THEPETITION RESPECTFULLY PRAY FOR REVEWING ufv VcdMA ,-tSV,Wr -.?-=--:^^ ORDER EALIER PASSED BEFORE LIVING AND DISCOVERY OF NEW AND IMPORTANT MATTER DOCUMENTS EVIDENCE BEING^ OmCIAL AND PUBLIC DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT RECORDS FOR PROVIDING SUSTANTIAL JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF DISMISSAL OF SERVICE ON ABSENCE IN DUTY OPPORTUNITY TO THE PETITIONER FOR CONSTENSTING THE CASE ON MERITS 1 ,/-H=/< t - '-^f '*-^fy ^- SK 5' ,\\' .^\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR il^-if- II 1 REVIEWPETITIONNo. 37 of 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Suresh Sai Bhagat. VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. REVIEW OF THE ORDER MADE AGAINST THE PETITIONER PASSED IN WKIT PETITION CS) No. 1203/2008 IN MATTER OF SURESH SAI BHAGAT VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & OTHERS DECIDED ON 03.07.2008. SB;IIon'ble Sbri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Janak Ram Verma, Advocate for the petitioner Shri Arun Sao, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents ORAL (Passed on 25th day ofNovember, 2011) I.A. No. 1, this is an application for condonation ofdelay in filing the review petition. Sufficient cause has been shown. Delay is condoned. 1. By this petition, the petitioners seek review of the order dated 03.07.2008 passed by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 1203/2008 (Suresh Sai Bhagat v. State ofChhattisgarh & Others) whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging the legality and validity ofthe order dated 30.01.2008, was dismissed. Against the order dated 03.07.2008 passed by this Court, the petitioner preferred an appeal being W.A. No. 236/2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 16.12.2008 (Aimexure P/1A) with liberty to file a review petition. 2. The grounds for review ofthe order dated 03.07.2008, as raised by the petitioner, are that the order sought to be reviewed is contrary to the provisions of law and contrary to the documents ftaudulently and mala fidely concealed by the State/respondents and the writ petition was decided without summOnmg the records. The Single Bench bught to have summoned all the records irom the State/respondents. The petitioner has submitted medical certificates and documents before this Court. The petitioner seeks opportunity to argue the matter afresh on ttie above stated grounds which have duly been considered by the Single Bench. 3. In case of a writ of mandamus, law is well settled that it is for the petitioner to submit all the documents and on mere filing a writ petition, no roving enquiry is permissible. In the case on hand, the petitioner has made a bald statement about concealment of documents, without specifying a particular document, which was necessary or relevant for adjudication of the dispute, and for want of specific document which the petitioner could not produce for specific reason, the court may not call upon the State to produce the said document. However, on a general statement that the State/respondents may be directed to produce all the documents, such direction cannot be issued at the instance of the party. Thus, the ground of not calling for the records from the State/respondents, which has been raised in review petition, is unsustainable in law and deserves to be rejected. 4. The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest eri-or on the record and has further not brought into the notice, any new facts V o ^'^.^f^^ ^ '••^S'S^f^ fK \ <0 which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise ofreview jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution, the petitioner has not produced any ground for review. Reliance of fhe petitioner on a decision of the Supreme Court in Dharam Deo Narayan Singh v. State ofJharkhand & Ofkers , is not applicable to the facts of fhe case, as in the case on hand, all the papers, documents produced before the Court was considered and thereafter, the order sought to be reviewed, was passed. It appears that the petitioner, by presentation ofthis review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh onmerits under the garb ofthe review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be pemiitted to argue fhe entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same isnot sustainable in law. (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chovdhary , Lity Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others , Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others , Government of T.N. & Others v. M.Ananchu ' 2010 (1) SCCD 265 (SC) 2AIR1995SC455 3AIR2000SC 1650 4AIR2000SC85 . ,< Asari & Others , and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others). 7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Amit 5 (2005) 2 SCC 332 6 (2005) 6 SCC 651