% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Review Petition No. 47 of 2008 Applicants 1. (Petitioners) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Versus Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. Govardhan Lal Nishad, Aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Ajit Singh Nishad, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, High School Kurrutola, BIock- Chararaa, District- Kanker (C.G.) Homan Lal Hirwani, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Guhari Ram Shiksha Karmi Grade- II, Navin Middle School Tuegahan, Block- Charama, District-Kanker (C.G.) Manoj Kumar Durgaasi, aged about 36 years, S/o Shri Bris Ram Durgaasi, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Middle School Chapeli, Block- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.) Santosh Kumar Singh, Aged about 29 years, S/o Shri L.P.Singh, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Govt. High School Tudge, Block- Bhanupratappur, District- Kanker (C.G.) Prein Singh Uike, aged about 30 years, S/o Shri Surju Ram Uike, Shiksha Karmi, Grade- II, Middle School Chichgaon, Block- Bhanupratappur, District-Kanker (C.G.) Panesh Kumar Sahu, aged about 29 yeats, S/o Shri Mansha Ram Sahu, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Navin Middle School Kahadgohi, Block- Charama, District- Kanker (C.G.) Chandra Shekhar Markaam, aged about 29 years, S/o Shjri Panku Ram Markaam, Shiksha Karmi Grade-II, Middle School Jabeli, Block- Koyalibeda, District- Kanker (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Panchayat and Gramin Vikas Department, DKS Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (Chhattisgarh). . Director, Directorate Panchayat Evam Samaj Kalyan, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Collector, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) Chief Executive Officer, Jila Panchayat, District Uttar Bastar Kanker (Chhattisgarh) (Application for Review of the order dated 26.8.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4658/2008) (By Circulation in Chaniber ofHon'bleShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J) JUDGMENT 8s ORDER (Passed on this 21st day ofNovember, 2008) This review petition is considered in Chamber in view of the provisions ofsub rule (2) ofRule 90, under Chapter VI oftheHigh Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. There is delay of three days in filing the review petition. The delay is condoned. The petitioners seek review of the order dated 26to August, 2008. passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4658 of 2008 ( Goverdhan Lal Nishad SE others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), on several grounds. The petitioners basically seek review on the ground stated in para 20 of the petition, which reads as under:- "20. TT-iat the fallowing proposition would emerge as grounds of review of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 26/08/2008; (a) Rules, 1995, 1997 and 1999 would clinch the issue only when the respondents would have acted in difference to the aforesaid rules and not otherwise. (b) This Hon'ble Court would Have jurisdiction ofreview of its own order dated 26/08/2008 because the current legal position in all the aforesaid cases presumably was not cited at the bar. (c) The appellate authority is non-descript and not clearly mentioned in the given facts and circumstances of the case because the impugned order of major penalty having been proceeds and passed by the respondent CEO necessarily required ratification by the General Administrative Committee of fhe respondent Zila Panchayat which was nullity in law. (d) The Hon'ble Court may be kind enoughto appreciate whether the import of the order dated 26/08/2008 was correctly understood and actuated by the respondents and which exigency not being available the appellate authority would have no jurisdiction to set right suchwrong done to the applicants. {e) The termination ofthe applicants not being provided for, the impugned orders of removal from the service could n.ot have been made and ivhich legal conflict of expression may not be settled by the appellate authority ifany. (f) The respondent CEO without any jurisdiction or authority could not have applied the ratio of the order/judgment m.ade in the case of Rekha Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & others, when the appUcants have made elaborate submission to the satisfaction of the respondent and without the appointing authority deciding to issue any such intimation letter the executive fiat of the respondent CEO over run the statutory jurisdiction ofthe General Administrative Committee of the respondent Zila Panchayat. (g) The respondent CEO having been conferred the jurisdiction to pass only the rrunor pencdty could not have assume such jurisdiction to impose major penalty on the applicant without any authority of law thus rendering the impugned termination orders legally impermissible. The main writ petition was disposed of not on consideratipn of merits of the case but on the ground of availability of the adequate, efficacious and alternative remedy where the hierarchy of appeals is provided in the statute. The grounds raised in this review petition by refemng to several rules and decisions of the HonTsle Supreme Court as well as by this High Court on merit, is not relevant, as the raain writ petition was not considered E3--:-:-' U-NI^- 7. on merits. The petitioners raay raise the same grounds on rnerits befQre the statutory appellate foruru. This Court after having considered various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the order dated 26.8.2008 passed inW.P.(S) No. 4658 of 2008 observed as under:- "3.A common thread running into the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases is that, normally the High Court should not interfere is there is an adequate efficadous altemative remedy where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedy before resorting to writ jurisdiction, except when a very strong case is made outfor making a departure. 4. Applying the well-settled dicta laid down by the Supreme Court on fhe issue of availability of altemative remedy to the facts of the case, this petition is dismissed as not maintainable as np strong case has been made out for exercise of extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner. However, liberty is resenied to the petitioners to take recourse to altemative statutory forum, raising all the grounds, available to the petitioners, if so advised. No order asto costs." The petitioners have not pointed out any manifest error on the record and the petitioners have not further brought into the notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made by the petitioners. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of -eviewjurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of ^•"•^s^ 8. Thakur the Constitution. The pedtioners have not produced any new ground for review. The petitioners by presentation of this review petidon seek an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on rherits 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 petitioner 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 Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs. Smt. Nirruala Kumar Chowdhary1, Lily Thomas etc. Vs. Union of India and others2, Ajit Kun-iar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others3, Government ofT.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asari and others4 and Kerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd., and others5. As a result and in view of the foregoing, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1AIR 1995 SC 455 2AIR2000SC1650 3AIR2000SC85 4 (2005) 2 SCC 332 5(2005)6SCC651