IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.223 of 2005 THE SECRETARY,BIHAR SCHOOL EXA Versus SMITARAJ & ORS ----------- 4. 13.5.2008 Heard Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Junior Counsel to Mrs. Mahashweta Chatterjee, learned counsel for the opposite party. The Bihar School Examination Board has preferred this application for review and/or recall of the order dated 12.8.2005 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12672 of 1999 (Smitaraj Vs. The State of Bihar), and for rehearing the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits in support of this application that certain materials in support of its case before the learned writ court were not in their possession and, therefore, could not be brought on record. The same are now in their possession which would destroy the writ petitioner’s case. It is, therefore, submitted that the judgment in question may be recalled and those materials may be considered for a fresh decision in the matter. I regret my inability to accede to the submission. The matter remained pending in this Court for six years and the Board found the period inadequate to produce all the relevant materials. Furthermore, the Board seems to be unmindful of the observation of this Court made in paragraph 7 of the order dated 12.8.2005 and reproduced hereinbelow:- “…On a perusal of the averments and the statements made by both sides on the issue in question, it is manifest that the Board has refused to answer the question with any - 2 - amount of frankness. This matter has come up before this Court on various occasions and it was argued again and again on behalf of the petitioner, the issues were clarified to the learned counsel for the Board repeatedly, and the result is the aforesaid statement on behalf of the Board in reply to the averments made on behalf of the petitioner and its brazen attempt to mislead this Court by suppressing vital materials in an effort to take this Court down the garden path …” It was open to the Board to inform the Court then that the relevant materials are not in its possession, are with some other authority, in which case the Court would have Considered to issue a direction to that authority to produce the relevant documents. The Board had instead chosen to file misleading statements. I am therefore, in no doubt that the present review application is misconceived, is a tainted & frivolous application. The functionaries of the Board would be well advised to file such a review application with great care and caution and should desist from burdening this Court with most unwanted matter. This review application is accordingly dismissed. S.Ali (S.K. Katriar, J.)