Chattisgarh High Court
Dilip Ratre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 July, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 17 of 2022
1. Dilip Ratre, S/o Lal Ji Ratre, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village
Pahanda, Police Station Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh 495674.
2. Jawahar Kurre, S/o Late Shri Ren Say Kurre, Aged About 38 Years,
BALCO District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Applicants
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Secretary, Department of Home, D.K.S. Bhavan,
Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters Civil Lines, Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3. Inspector General of Police Bilaspur Range, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Superintendent of Police Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondent
For Applicants : Shri Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent : Shri Ashutosh Mishra, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri, Judge &
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, Judge
Order on Board
01/07/2022
Goutam Bhaduri, Judge
Heard.
1. The present petition has been filed for reviewing the order dated
31.08.2021.
2. The grievance of the applicants is that an advertisement was issued
on 20.01.2008 and pursuant to the said advertisement, the selection
list was issued on 12.07.2008, however the entire selection list was
cancelled on 09.09.2008.
3. It is submitted that on the basis of earlier selection list, the applicants
were selected, however, when the fresh advertisement was issued on
10.06.2009, it was subject of challenge by the writ petition. It is stated
that the earlier cancellation list on 09.09.2008 was stayed by the
Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur on
10.09.2008, however the State in its reply without considering earlier
selection list as not cancelled, made an advertisement on 04.06.2009
wherein the applicants participated.
4. It is submitted that it was the duty of the State to bring the correct facts
before the Court and the reply in the earlier round of litigation wrongly
it was stated that the earlier selection process was cancelled but by
the time 04.06.2009, it has been cancelled and fresh advertisement
was issued.
5. After going through the order dated 31.08.2021, we do not find any
ground of review exists. The averments which are being made today,
were available to the applicant/petitioner on the date itself when the
earlier writ appeal i.e. WA No. 206/2021 was being adjudicated on
31.08.2021.
6. The Supreme Court in the judgment dated 03.11.2020 in Civil Appeal
No. 3601 of 2020 in case of Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs V.
Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors, had laid down that the judgment
should be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake apparent on
the fact of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be
detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error
apparent on the fact of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. However, held that in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. It
is further held that there is a clear distinction between an erroneous
decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the
first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be
corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
7. After perusal and the comparison of the fact, we do not find any
apparent mistake on the face of the record. Having considered the
facts of the case, we do not find any case for review is made out.
8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Ruchi
