HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No.10 of 2007 PETITIONERS 1. Applicants Central Excise Group B Executive Officers Association Raipur, Through its President Anand Kishore, S/o Iate Shri Jitendra Prasad, aged about 45 years, House No.2, Steel Colony, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh Sapan Khan, S/o late Kesab Khan‘ aged about 47 years, at present General, ’ Secretary, Central Excise Group . B Executive Officers Association, Raipur, Present Address O/o The. Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Division Raipur, Near Raj Bhawan, Civil LinesrRaipur Petitioners No.3 to 7 having withdrawn their petition are no longer necessary parties and are therefore not being arrayed as parties to the review petition , Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Non—applicants Union of India, Through the Secretary, Goilernment of India, Ministry of Finance (Revenue), North Block, New Delhi Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, North Block, New Delhi Chief Commissioner, Customs and Excise, gMadhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, 48, Administrative Area, Arera Hills, Bhopal (MP) Central Administrative Tribunal, Carvas Building, Civil Lines, Jabalpur (MP) O R D E R (In chamber) (Passed on Q31. 201 1) 1. The petitioners have filed this review petition for reviewing the order dated 6-12~2006 passed in Writ Petition No,5019 of 2005. 2. Two Original Applications filed by the petitioners herein against their inter—zonal transfer by respondent No.3 and against'rejection of eir th representation by respondent No.2 was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur by a common order of Annexure-P/6. Their writ petition against the order of the Tribunal confirming the order passed by respondents No.3 and 2 (Annexure- P/3 & P/4) was dismissed by this Court vide order'under review with a finding that as per the guidelines dated 19-2-2004, Inter- Commissionerate transfers subject to certain exceptions were allowed for officials of Group B, C or D and the case of petitioners No.3 to 7‘ Vdoes not fall within those exceptions. Since there was no loss of seniority to the petitioners, the earlier transfer policy was to continue. As per the Government order dated 16-1—2003, respondent No.3 is empowered to monitor the implementation of the Board’s Instructions with regard to transfers. Even otherwise, transfer order was passed with the approval ofthe Chairman ofthe CBEC, New Delhi. . lt is settled law that the HighCourt exercises power of review as a Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. There are no definitive limits to the exercise of the powers of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. lt may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. However, the power is to be exercised within the limitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4 . In View of the above settled law, this Court is of the considered opinion that the instant review petition is without any substance, the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. x i i Sd/- ‘ Dhirendra Mishra i ‘ Sd/- Barve \\ Judge i i R.N. Chandrakar Judge