IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.46 of 2011 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 4421/2010) Budh Dev Biswas, SON OF LATE M.M. BISWAS, RESIDENT OF- MOKAMA HOUSE, ROAD NO. 24 REJENDRA NAGAR, P.S., KADAM KUAN, DISTRICT- PATNA-16….PETITIONER. Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, INFORMATION & TECHNOLOGY DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (BSEDC0 SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA-23. 7. THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (BSEDC0 SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA-23. 8. THE MANAGER (MARKETING) CUM-SECRETARY, BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (BSEDC) SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA-23. 9. BIHAR STATE ELECTRONICS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (BSEDC) SHASTRI NAGAR, PATNA-23, THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR :--- RESPONDENTS/OPPOSITE PARTIES. ---------------------------------- 3. 23.11.2011. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and the State. 2. Counsel for the review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 25.3.2010 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4421 of 2010, whereunder prayer of the writ petitioner was rejected in the light of the contents of the letter of the State Government dated 10.2.2010 informing the Corporation that it is not agreeable to the proposal of the Board of Directors of 2 the Corporation to enhance the age of superannuation of the employees of the Corporation from 58-60 years. 3. There does not appear to be any error apparent on the face of the record under order dated 25.3.2010. Counsel for the review petitioner, however, submitted that the very hypothesis in the letter dated 10.2.2010 that the Corporation is running in loss is itself incorrect. Such aspect of the matter was never highlighted before this Court during the hearing of the writ petition, as such, this Court is not inclined to consider the prayer to review the order dated 25.3.2010. The Review Petition is dismissed. P.K.P. (V.N.Sinha,J.)