IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 72010 i»i8»6e Petitioner ^' ,. Nageshwar Prasad Tripathi, aged about 62 years, S/o Ganganand Tripathi, R/o Newari Post Shivpurwa Via Amarpatan, Distt. Satna Versus /Respondents State of Chhattisgarh through Secretary, Home Department, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur Director General, Jail, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur Inspecfor General of Prison, Raipur The Superintendent Central Jail Raipur The Superintendent 1 st Class, District Jail Jagdalpur, Bastar State of Madhya Pradesh Through Secretary Ministry 6f Home Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal ' APPLICATION FOR REVIEW ^ ^- ftj^ Sl- Petitioner Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHA.TTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 48 of 2010 Nageshwar Prasad Tripathi VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh & others. APPLICATION FOR REVIEW (BY CIRCULATION IN CHAMBER) SB^Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. ORDER- (Passed on 21st day ofJune, 2010) 1. 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. 2. The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 16.03.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No. 6372/2007 (Nageshwar Prasad Tripathi v. The State of Chhatttsgarh & Others) on the ground that the finding to the effect that the subsistence allowance was paid after receipt ofthe subsistence allowance ofRs. 3,190/- by order dated 17.12.1982 passed by the High Court ofMadhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 1388/1982, is error apparent on the face ofrecord. 3. Observation/finding made in para 11 ofthe order dated 16.03.2010 to the effect that "Thereafter, the petitioner was granted subsistence allowance alongwith traveling expenses. There is no other document indicating the fact that the petitioner was thereafter, at any point of time, not paid subsistence allowance which prevented the petitioner from attending the enquiry" appears to be a clerical mistake th.at needs to be clarified that since the petitioner was removed from service by order dated 16.09.1982, there was no occasion to make a subsistence allowance after 17.12.1982. Prior to 17.12.1982, as is evident, the ^ •^z: -^^s^ 'kjW^fiissfesaiSSSS^fsa^asiisi^^^ .^^-"ffS^L^^ Amit 5. There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and has not further brought into the notice,any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioner. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confmed 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. 6. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits 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 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 Cohwdhary , Lily Thomas etc. v. Union oflndia and others , Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others3, Government ofT.N. (6- Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others , and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others .) 7. >In view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed with the above clarification. a. Satish K.Agnihotri ' AIR 1995 SC 455 2AIR2000SC1650 "AIR2000SC85 4 (2005) 2 SCC 332 ^5(2005)6SCC651 J ^-