Sri Farooq Beg vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 6295 Kant

                           -1-

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                        PRESENT

  THE HON'BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE

                          AND

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

           REVIEW PETITION NO.378/2021 IN
        WRIT PETITION NO.16007/2021(GM-MM-S)

BETWEEN:
SRI FAROOQ BEG
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
S/O REHMAN BEG
HOLENARASIPURA
HASSAN DISTRICT
HASSAN - 573 201
                                           ...PETITIONER
(BY MS.ANUPARNA BORDOLOI, ADVOCATE)

AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
   REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
   KHANIJA BHAVAN
   RACE COURSE ROAD
   BENGALURU - 560 001

2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
   KHANIJA BHAVAN
   RACR COURSE ROAD
   BENGALURU - 560 001

3. SENIOR GEOLOGIST (M & J)
   DEPARTMENT OF MINES & GEOLOGY
   HASSAN DISTRICT
   HASSAN - 573 201
                                -2-

4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
   SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICE
   HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 201

5. TAHSILDAR
   GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
   HASSAN DISTRICT
   HASSAN - 573 201

6. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
   HASSAN SUB-DIVISION
   HASSAN DISTRICT
   HASSAN - 573 201
                                                  ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA)

                               ****

      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE READ WITH ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITTUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
06.09.2021 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.16007/2021 (GM-MM-S) IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SACHIN
SHANKAR MAGADUM J. MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                             ORDER

This review petition is filed seeking review of the order

dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

Petition No.16007/2021.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit to

this Court that the judgment cited by the State in Writ Petition

No.9713/2021 is not at all applicable to the case on hand. She

would further submit that in fact, the controversy involved in the

writ petition is squarely covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10601/2019. She submits

that the Court has wrongly applied the principles laid in Writ

Petition No.9713/2021 and consequently, dismissed the writ

petition. She would, therefore, submit that there is an error

apparent on the face on account of wrongly placing reliance on

the principles laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Writ Petition No.9713/2021.

3. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and learned

Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

4. On perusal of the grounds urged in the review petition, we

find that in the review petition, an attempt has been made to

seek reopening of the case. The grounds urged in the review

petition are meticulously examined. We do not find any error

apparent on the face. A futile attempt is made to seek reopening

of the case which is not permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

5. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

6. The pending interlocutory application does not survive for

consideration and stands disposed of.

Sd-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/ JUDGE

AHB