IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.70 of 2008 BRAJ KISHORE SINGH 'PRABHAT' Versus VIRENDRA KUMAR & ORS ----------- 04- 13.8.2008 Heard Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior Advocate, for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed this review application to expunge the following portion of the order dated 11.1.2008, passed in LPA No.1170 of 2005 (Birendra Kumar vs. Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna & Ors.) :- “15. The Registrar General of this Court is directed to file a complaint petition in a court of competent jurisdiction under appropriate provision(s) of law against Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat, the then Deputy Secretary, since retired, the deponent of the counter affidavit of respondent nos.1 to 4, for swearing false affidavit.” Learned counsel for the petitioner presses IA No. 3786 of 2008, filed under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of the delay in filing the review application. It appears that there is a delay of one month in preferring this review application. In view of the statements made in this application and the submissions made in support thereof, the delay in filing the civil review application is hereby condoned. I A No.3786 of 2008 is accordingly disposed of. 2. The sole petitioner of CWJC No.13948 of 2002 (Virendra Kumar vs. Bihar Vidhan Sabha, Patna & Ors.), preferred the same challenging the recruitment process adopted by the Bihar Vidhan 2 Sabha for appointment to the post(s) of Reporter. The same was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by order dated 25.8.2005, giving rise to the said LPA no.1170 of 2005. The appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench by the said order dated 11.1.2008, whereby the Registrar General of this Court was directed to file a complaint petition against the deponent for filing false affidavit sworn by the present applicant, the then Deputy Secretary in the secretariat of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha. The finding of the Division Bench in the said order dt. 11.1.2008, leading to the direction to file the complaint petition, is reproduced hereinbelow :- “….Learned counsel for the appellant raises a serious grievance that disclosure of the name/identification by respondent nos. 6 and 7 in their answer-books was a purposive attempt on their part to defeat the very object of coding and decoding which renders the selection process with respect to respondent nos.6 and 7 highly suspect. The grievance assumes serious dimensions in view of the stand taken in the counter affidavit. The same has been sworn by one Braj Kishore Singh Prabhat who was the Deputy Secretary of the Assembly on 14.8.2003, the date of the affidavit. It is stated as follows in paragraph 24 of the counter affidavit : “24. That with regard to the statement contained in paragraph no.12 it is stated that the names written by the respondent no. 6 and 7 were pasted by the whitener and therefore their answer sheet also was evaluated on the basis of the code number given to each answer book.” “12. It is manifest on a perusal of the answer-books that whitener was not pasted/applied on the identification marks. The counter affidavit of the Assembly to this extent is a blatant falsehood meant to mislead this Court little realizing that the answer-books in original may be perused by this Court.” 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for mercy and submits that the extracted portion may be expunged. He has taken us through the order-sheets in the concerned file maintained by the secretariat of Bihar Vidhan Sabha in routine course of business in an effort to satisfy us that the para-wise comments, on the basis of which the counter affidavit was sworn, had been approved by the Secretary as well as the Speaker of the Bihar Vidhan Sabha. He, therefore, submits that he may not be prosecuted. We regret our inability to accede to the submission, inter alia, for the reason that the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner involves examination of facts which cannot be done within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. These are essentially issues of facts which can be examined by the learned trial court on the basis of substantive evidence which will be led there. It is further relevant to state that the order of this Court has taken effect. The learned Registrar General of this Court has already filed a complaint petition in the court of competent jurisdiction, cognizance has been taken against the petitioner, and awaits trial. 4. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The matter was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court at the instance of respondent no.6 of the appeal which has been dismissed. Paragraph 13 of the connected MJC No. 794 of 2008 (Virendra Kumar vs. Bihar Vidhan Sabha through Secretary & Ors.), is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- “13. That the petitioner would like to mention that respondent no.6 of LPA No. 1170 of 2005 challenged the validity of judgment dated 11.1.2008, passed in the said 4 appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide SLP (Civil) no.4811 of 2008, which has been dismissed on 7.3.2008. In other words, the judgment of this Hon’ble Court has been affirmed by the Apex Court.” 5. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere in this matter. ( S K Katriar ) ( K K Mandal ) mrl.