1 @ CF34; {f IN THE HON'BLE iilféH’JCOLiiiT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) singie Baad’ (2/ .. 20 ev1ew Petltlon N R o APPLICANT: (/M/ s S K Sarawagl & Co (P) Ltd A Company Reglstered under the Ind1an Compames‘ Act, 1956 through 1ts Addltlonal Director Suresh Agrawal, S/o Late Shri Raj Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 32 Years,‘ Registered Office ‘OFF-7, 3rd Floor, Ashoka Millenium, Near New Rajendra Nagar, Ring Road No.1 Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS ESPONDENTS: 1, State'of/Chhattisgarh ' Through the Secretary Department of Cor'nfnerce and Industries D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh State Industrial Developmen Corporation Ltd _- A Government of Chhattisgarh Undertaking, Through its Managing Director, B—4, MR. ' Colony, Shailendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) Secretary Department ofTown and Country‘Planning ' D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur (CG) l Director I Town and Country Planning % 10 / R / t tat hasg Ri (. w APPLICATION FOR TiVIEw OF THE ORDER DATED. 13/07/2010 - ADE IN W.P. (C) No‘i‘3'383/2010 Se of Chttiarh apur C.G) E M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR \ REVIEW PETITION No. 92 of 2010 APPLICANT : M/s SK. Sarawagi & Co. (P) Ltd. VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & Others APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 13/07/2010 MADE IN W.P.(C) No. 3383/2010 RESPONDENTS .MLCBY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ORDER (Passed on 13m September, 2010) The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub Rule 2 of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. By this application, the review petitioner/unit petitioner seeks review of the order dated 13m July, 2010 to the extent that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.3383/2010, with liberty to tile a fresh petition, if any cause of action arises in future. The petitioner has not made out any case for reviewing of the order passed earlier. The review petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record and has not thrther brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well w settled principles of law 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. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the applicants have not produced any ground for review. It appears that the applicant by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire. case afresh on merits under the garb of the 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 applicant should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. (See :Meera Bhanjan v.Smt. Nirmal Kumar Ch0wdhary1, Lily Thoma etc. v. Union of India and athers2, Ajit Kumar Ruth v. State of Orissa and others3, Government of T.N. & Others v. M Ananchu Asari and others4, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd.‘ and others5.) The prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner may not take recourse to legal forum, even if new cause of action arises in future, ismisplaced. On new cause of action, legal forum for seeking redressal of grievance is already available. The matter has been decided on merit and the petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error on the record‘ Thus, by review, the petitioner will not be permitted to withdraw the writ petition, which had already been decided on merit. As a result and in View of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge ' run A IAIR 1995 sc 455 2 AIR 2000 SC 1650 3 AIR 2000 sc 35 4 (2005) 2 scc 332 5 (2005) 6 scc 651 s