IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1509 of 2010 Mithilesh Kumar Singh, son of late Radha Prasad Singh, resident of Mohalla Rauza, P.O. Ara Chowk, Ward No.28 Ara Municipal Corporation, P.S. and town Ara District- Bhojpur --- Review---Petitioner---- Appellant. Versus 1. Smt. Urmila Devi, wife of Gauri Shankar Lal, resident of Mohalla Rauza, P.O. Ara Chowk, Ward No.28, P.S. Ara District Bhojpur ---- Writ petitioner- Respondent ----Ist Set. 2. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Old Secretariat Building, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate Bhojpur at Ara. P.S. Ara, District -Bhojpur. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur at Ara. 5. The Additional Collector Bhojpur at Ara 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ara. 7. The Anchal Adhikari Sadar, Ara ----- Respondents ---- Respondents IInd Set. ------------- 3. 10.1.2011 Heard Mr. Basant Chaudhary for the appellant, Mr. Dhurjati Prasad, learned Government Pleader No. VII, and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha for the respondents. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 27.8.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Review No. 200 of 2010, whereby he has refused to review his judgment dated 15.7.2010, passed in C.W. J.C. No. 15645 of 2008 (Srimati Urmila Devi Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), disposing of 2 the writ petition. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The writ petitioner had contested election for Ward Councilor of Ara Municipality, and was elected. The appellant herein filed objection with the appropriate authorities that Urmila Devi, the writ petitioner, had misrepresented about his caste position. It was alleged that she belongs to unreserved category, whereas she represented to be a member of the O.B.C. This led to an enquiry wherein it was held that the writ petitioner had really misrepresented her caste position. She preferred the said writ petition whereby the enquiry conducted by the authorities was found perfunctory and can not be relied upon. The writ petition has, however, been disposed of with the further direction that it will be open to the authorities to conduct an exhaustive enquiry in the matter. The present appellant preferred the aforesaid review application on the ground that he had not been implicated as a party in the writ proceedings, in a situation where the enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner had been initiated at his instance The same has been rejected by 3 the learned Single Judge on the ground that the matter is entirely between the authorities and the candidate. It appears to us that the appellant herein was not a candidate for the election in question and was only a voter. The learned Single Judge has, therefore, dismissed the review application also on the ground that he is mere a busy body. We agree with the order of the learned single Judge on the review petition, in a situation where liberty has been granted to the authorities to conduct a fresh and exhaustive enquiry. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar,J. ) ( S. P. Singh, J.)