Chattisgarh High Court
Hiralal Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 January, 2025
1
2025:CGHC:2678
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
REVP No. 4 of 2025
1 - Hiralal Sahu S/o Ghasia Ram Sahu Aged About 62 Years R/o - 54/592, Sundar
Nagar, Dangania, Raiur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
Versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Scheduled Caste And Scheduled
Tribe Development Department, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, P.S.
Rakhi, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.).
2 - Assistant Commissioner, Adivasi Vikas, Raipur District Raipur (C.G.).
3 - Dy. Director, All India Pre Examination Trading Cneter, Ravishankar University,
Campus Raipur District Raipr (C.G.).
4 - The Labour Court, Raipur, Through Its Presiding Officer Raipur, District Raipur
(C.G.).
5 - Dy. Labour Commissioner, Gitanjali Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Saket Pandey, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Amandeep Singh, Panel Lawyer
SB: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
16/01/2025
1. This review petition is filed by the petitioner on 06.12.2024 seeking review
of the order dated 21.04.2014 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.
2757/2004 whereby, the writ petition was disposed of by this Court based
on the submissions made by the counsel for the Respondent No. 1
(review petitioner herein).
Digitally
SHUBHAM signed by
DEY SHUBHAM
DEY
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not
given any instructions of not claiming the consequential benefits and
difference of wages and therefore, any submission made by the counsel
appearing before the Court is not binding upon him. Hence, the review
petition be allowed.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/State opposes
the submission of the counsel for the petitioner and would submit that this
review petition is filed after more than 10 years. In the order, the Court
has categorically recorded the submission made by the counsel
representing the respondents therein/review petitioner herein.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
5. The ground as argued and raised in the review petition is based on some
submission of the counsel representing the review petitioner in the writ
petition. The Court has recorded the submission of the counsel for the
respondent therein. The jurisdiction of review can be exercised only in
exceptional circumstances where there is some error apparent on the
face of record. The ground which is raised by the counsel for the
petitioner cannot be said to be the error apparent on the face of record.
6. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not
permissible. In order to seek review it has to be demonstrated that order
suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The scope of review is
very limited and an order or judgment is open to review only if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. Hon'ble Supreme
Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 and Surendra Kumar Vakil &
ors vs. Chief Executive Officer, MP & ors reported in (2004) 10 SCC
126 has considered the issue with regard to grounds on which review
petition can be considered.
7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Meera Bhanja vs Smt. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 has observed thus:
"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way
of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation
of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing
with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking
to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.
Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC
1047], speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the
following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3):
It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909] , there is nothing in
Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court
from exercising the power of review which inheres in
every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage
of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the
exercise of the power of review. The power of review may
be exercised on the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the person
seeking the review or could not be produced by him at
the time when the order was made; it may be exercised
where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That
would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of
review is not to be confused with appellate power which
may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court."
8. Considering the grounds raised by applicants in this review petition and
taking into consideration aforementioned rulings of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, this Court is of considered view that review petitioner failed to point
any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of the order
dated 21.04.2014.
9. For the foregoing discussions and observations, the review petition being
sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Dey
