'TBT ^s. f10" -MJ RE^EW PETITION No. 65 OF 2007_ Muktipad Ghoshal S/o Late Shri B.N.Gfaoshal, Aged 62 years, Ret. Assistant Enghieer Water P.esources Department, R,/o J-8, Parijat Colony, Nehj-u Nagar, Bilaspur (C.G.) '17.' .£L(I 'Ejf l O 11 2) 3) State of Clihattisgarh Thi-ough the Principal Secretan' Water Resources Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ingineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Govemmeat of CKhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) Chief Engineer, Miiiimata Hasdeo Bango Project, Bilaspur (C.G.) RE.V7E.W PETmON FOR RE.CALLING THE ORDER DATED 12.07.2007 PASSED IN WRIT PETITON (-S) No. 4041/2007. r^i %^/j l.A. (Passed oa 15th day ofOctober, 2007) No. 1, this is an application for condonation ofdelai SufScient cause has beea shown. The application is ordered as praysd for. 1. Tlus petition seeks review ofthe order dated 12.07.2007 passed in Writ Petition (S) No. 4041 of 2007 (Muktipad Ghoshal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others). The petitioner seeks review not on the new grounds but on the same grounds wliich have earlier been raised and considered by this Court. This Court dismissed the writ petition (S) No. 4041 of 2007, filed by the preseat petitioner onthe gi-ound ofdelay and laches on 12.07.2007. 2. On perusal ofthe papers and documents appended thereto, tliere is no apparent eiTor on the face ofrscords. 3. The petitioner has not pointed out any manifest error in. the record and tlie petitioner has not further brought mto the notice, any new fact which could not be produced earlier despite diligent efforts made b;/ the petitioner. It is we.ll settled principles oflaw tiiat the review proceedings are not by way ofan appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit ofOrder 47 Rule 1 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High -c Court under Article 226 ofthe Constitution. Ths applicant has not produced aay ne.w ground for review, except the same ground which has been coiisidered and decided iii the v»Titpetition. 4. The prmciple of law is wel! settled by several judicial pronomicements of the. Hon'ble Supreme Coiirt in the case of Smt. Meera Bhaajan Vs. Smt. Ninaala Kumar Choudhar^', Lily Thomas, ete. Vs. Union of India and others , Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others , Govemment of T.N. and others Vs. M.Ananchu Asaii and others , aad Kerla State Eiectricity Board Vs. Hitsch Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd and others3. 5. Applying the well settled prmciples oflaw to the preseat ease, there is ao ground available for review ofthe order dated 12.07.2007 underthe garb ofthe review pefition, the petitioner seek an opportunity to argiie the enfee case afresh wliich would amount to convesl the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 6. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. 1. AIR 1995 SC 455 2.AJ5.2030SC1650 3. AIR 2000 SC 85 4. (2005) 2 SCC 332 5.(2005)SSCC651 Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotn Judge