IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.150 of 2008 BHOLA KUMAR Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 03 4.3.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The present application has been filed for review of the order dated 20.5.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 10523 of 2005. On 20.5.2008 this Court noticed that the initially application for compassionate appointment filed on 15.1.2000 was defective. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a proper application on 24.1.2001, which was rejected as being barred by time, beyond the period of five years. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the submission for review, submits that it is apparent from the supplementary counter affidavit of the respondents that it was the application dated 15.1.2000 at Annexure-C which was deficient. That the petitioner had filed another complete application on 15.1.2000 itself at Annexure- E to the supplementary counter affidavit, escaped the attention of the Court. If that be the correct position, the petitioner had submitted his application for compassionate appointment within time. Counsel for the State opposing the review application, urged that if a correct application had in fact, 2 been submitted on 15.1.2000 there was no occasion for the petitioner to submit a fresh application on 24.1.2001. This Court on consideration of the respective submissions is satisfied that the petitioner has been able to demonstrate the need for a review of the order dated 20.5.2008. Upon review of the materials, this Court arrives at the conclusion that there is nothing on record to suggest that notice of the incomplete application dated 15.1.2000 at Annexure-C was ever communicated to the petitioner. If there were deficiency, the same were required to be made up in that very application by filling in the left out information. There was no occasion for the petitioner to submit two applications on the same date, without any communication to him, on the fate of the previous application. This Court finds substance in the submission of the counsel for the State that the aforesaid fact coupled with the filing of a fresh application on 24.1.2001 raises more question than it answers. While dismissing the review application this Court considers it proper to direct that the matter remains essentially in the realm of the respondents on facts whether the petitioner was communicated the defects in his earlier application at Annexure-C, if so, why he was not permitted to remove the defects therein itself. 3 Whether communication was made to him to file a fresh application leading to the submission of Annexure-E. If the petitioner had filed a correct application on 15.1.2001, what was the occasion to file a fresh application on 24.1.2001. The claim of the petitioner shall abide by the final of decision of the respondents on these issues of facts. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)