IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.223 of 2008 Lal Babu Prasad, S/o- Late Jhapsi Prasad, aged about 60 years resident of mohalla- Dahuchak Nagla, P.S.- Mallsalami, Patna City, District- Patna, Manager, M/s Kumar Medical Hall, Makahania Kuan, Patna-80004. ……………… Petitioner. VERSUS State of Bihar through, 1. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna-800015. 2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna-800015. 3. The Director-in-chief, Health Services, New Secretariat, Patna-800015. 4. The Director, T.B. Demonstration and Training Centre, Agam Kuan, Patna- 80007. ……………… Opposite Parties. ----------- 02 27.11.2008 A writ petition was filed by the petitioner claiming certain dues for alleged medicines supplied by him to the State Government. The writ petition was disposed of by an order after hearing the parties on 03.01.2007 being order in CWJC No. 16425 of 2004. By the said order respondents were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate orders. It was directed that if any part of the claim was admitted with the respondents, they would be obliged to make payments, thereof within two months. As nothing was done in the matter, in spite of representation filed by the petitioner. Petitioner then filed a contempt application being MJC No. 3050 of 2007. In the said contempt application a show cause was filed by the opposite parties annexing therewith the order passed pursuant to directions of this Court being order dated 20.03.2008, by which the claim of the petitioner was not accepted. On such a show cause filed the contempt application being MJC No. 3050 of 2007 was disposed of by order dated 01.05.2008 permitting the petitioner to 2 challenge the said order before appropriate forum, if he was so aggrieved. The petitioner has now filed this civil review application praying for passing fresh order in the contempt application, as in his view the order rejecting his claim is not correct. Such an application, much less, a civil review application does not lie to this Court. If petitioner was aggrieved by any order passed by this Court he had his remedies. The advice given to the petitioner was wholly misconceived to take up such an application before this Court and waste this Court’s time. With the above observations, the civil review application is dismissed. Ordinarily in respect of such misconceived petition I would have imposed heavy exemplary cost but would not do so as apparently the petitioner acted on the advice of the lawyer. Trivedi/ ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)