IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.128 of 2003 1. STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation Department Govt of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Division, Nawada. 4. The Executive Engineer, Poonpoon Flood Protection Division, Anishabad, Patna. …Petitioners Versus RAMESHWAR PRASAD SAHU son of late Buchan Sahu resident of East Ashok Nagar, Road No. 13, P/5 Kankarbagah, Distt. Patna retired Junior Engineer Poonpoon Flood Protection Division Anishabad, Patna. …Opposite Party ----------- 3. 09.07.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners, In this writ application, the petitioners, State of Bihar and its officials have sought review of an order of this Court dated 14.5.2002 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4221 of 2002. In the background of the fact that no counter affidavit was filed by the State in CWJC No. 4221 of 2002, this Court in its order dated 14.5.2002 had given liberty to file review application in the following terms.:- “In this view of the matter and in absence of any counter affidavit, I have no option but to dispose of the writ application on its own merit. The order as contained in Annexure-2 at the face of order as contained in Annexure-1 must be held to be wholly without jurisdiction as the authorities have proceeded to recover certain amounts from the petitioner in absence of any pending enquiry or proceeding in terms of Rule 43-B of the Rules. In the result, this writ application is allowed and the order impugned as contained in Annexure-2 is quashed. However, it will be open to the state authorities to approach this court for review of this order in case any proceeding or enquiry in terms of Rule 43-B of the Rules initiated against the petitioner.” From the aforementioned order of this court it would be clear that review was permissible only if the State could have come out with the case that any proceeding or any enquiry in terms of Rule 43-B of the Bihar Pension Rules was initiated against the writ - 2 - petitioner, Rameshwar Prasad Sahu. Counsel for the petitioners, State of Bihar however, fairly submits that no such enquiry or proceeding in terms of Rule 43-B of the Bihar Pension Rules was ever initiated against the writ petitioner, Rameshwar Prasad Sahu. In view of the aforementioned admitted position, there would be hardly any scope for review of the order of this Court. This application for review is thus wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)