IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.28 of 2004 1. Abdul Manik @ Manil Ali. 2. Sadikul Islam @ Sedakas Ali. Both sons of Nasitullah, residents of village-Ajampur Shankar, Tola Ghuski, Police Station-Barari, District-Katihar. …..Petitioners-Petitioners. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Commissioner, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Under Secretary, Home Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. Superintendent of Police, District-Katihar. 6. Officer-in-charge, Barari Police Station, District-Katihar. ….. Respondents-Opposite parties. ----------- For the petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Senior Advocate. Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Alok Kumar, A.C. to G.A.I. ----- 08/ 30.07.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. This petition has been filed for review of order passed by a bench of this court dated 17.01.2000 by which CWJC No.3218 of 1990 was dismissed for default as well as on merit on the ground that no one appeared when the case was called out and also that although the impugned orders of the authorities were written orders, but they were not disclosed in the writ petition and even then the same had been challenged. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that if the court was dismissing the writ petition on default the same should not have been dismissed on merits without hearing learned counsel - 2 - for the petitioners. He further submits that the petitioners had disclosed the impugned orders giving letter numbers and also stating in paragraphs 15 and 16 that although authorities were duty bound to supply a copy of the order to the petitioners, but it was not given to the petitioners despite their insistence. 4. This sufficiently shows that efforts were made by the petitioners for obtaining the impugned order but the same was not supplied to them by the authorities concerned. However, subsequently a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents was filed on 06.12.1990 in which the impugned order was annexed as Annexure-A. In the said circumstances, the order under challenge was before this court when the order sought to be reviewed was passed on 17.01.2000 and there was no specific denial in the counter affidavit with respect to the aforesaid statements made in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the writ petition. 5. In the said circumstances, this court finds error apparent on the face of record in the aforesaid order dated 17.01.2000 passed in CWJC no.3218 of 1990. Hence, the said order is reviewed and recalled. This civil review petition is allowed. 6. Let CWJC No.3218 of 1990 continue in accordance with law. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)