AMENDED COPY OF REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 51 of^Ol6)^Q\\ APPLICANT PETITIONER NON-APPLICANTS RBSPONDENTS Minesh Tamrakar, S/o. late Ram Prasad Tamrakar, aged about 41 years, R/o. Ward No.6, Village Gandai Pandariya, Tahsil Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) Versus :1) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (A Government of India Enterprise) Through Managing Director, Regd. Office 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai 400 020 :2) Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Through Senior Regional Manager, L.P.G. Bottling Plant, Mandir Hasaud, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 492101 :3) Union of India through the Secretary, Petroleum Department Sansad Bhavan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi ^. ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPLICANT Review Pefition No. 38 of2011 Miiiesh Taiiirakar. ^.' / PETITIONER VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS : Hindustan Petroleum Coiporation Ltd. RESPONDENTS &0thers. REVIEW APPLICATION. SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agmhotri, J, Present: Ste H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal/ Advocate for the applicant. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistaiit Solicitor General for the Union oflndia. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 13th day ofJune,2011) . 1. By this review petition, the petitioner seeks review ofthe order dated 29.10.2010 passed in W.P.(C) No, 5494/2010. The grounds raised in the review petition is that the facts stated in the impugiied order to the effect that fhe advertisement published iti "Haribhoomi" newspaper on 19.10.2009 for appointment of dealers under Rajeev Gandlii Rural L.P.G. Distribution Scheme, was admittedly withdrawn. 2. The petitioner had made aii application for allotment of dealership on the basis of advertisement dated 19.10.2009, which was rejected. Though, on tlie ground of withdrawal of the eariier advertisement dated 19.10.2009/the writ petition was dismissed as having becosiie iiifmctuous. However, review of the order dated 29.10.2010 is necessaiy as the subsequent advertisement for allotment ofdealership, according to fhe petitioner, is en'oneous. 3. Be that as it may, tlie subsequent adveilisement was not mider challenge in W.P.(C) No. 5494/2010 and the facts, as stated in the order sought to be reviewed is also not disputed. The petitioner has attempted to question the subsequent notification which was issued after passing ofthe order dated 29.10.2010, which is not pei-missible in law as tlie review is to be done ifthere is eiTor apparent on the face ofrecord, or othenvise inthe facts ofthe writ petition. 4, The attempt ofthe petitioner seems to be misuse ofjudicial process which is notpemiissible in law. Thus, the review petition is dismissed with cost quantified to be a sum of Rs. 3000/- payable to tiie Higli Court Legal Aid Conmiittee. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge