[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Smt. Sangeeta Vasure on 13 March, 2026
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
1 RP-71-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 13th OF MARCH, 2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 61 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SHIVRAM BHABAR
WITH
REVIEW PETITION No. 1628 of 2025
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAHUL TANWAR
REVIEW PETITION No. 59 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DILIP KHEDE
REVIEW PETITION No. 60 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SANJAY KHARE
REVIEW PETITION No. 64 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
BADRI NIMADI
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 13-Mar-26
5:17:47 PM
2 RP-71-2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 65 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SANGEETA
REVIEW PETITION No. 66 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SHARDA PORWAL
REVIEW PETITION No. 67 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
RAJESH RATHOD
REVIEW PETITION No. 69 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
LAKHAN SANWLE
REVIEW PETITION No. 70 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
VISHNU SATHE
REVIEW PETITION No. 71 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
SMT. SANGEETA VASURE
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: DIVYANSH
SHUKLA
Signing time: 13-Mar-26
5:17:47 PM
3 RP-71-2026
REVIEW PETITION No. 73 of 2026
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Versus
DEEPAK KUSHWAHA
Appearance:
Shri Shrey Raj Saxena - Dy. Advocate General for the applicant /
State.
Shri Vijay Kumar Patwari - Advocate for the respondents / review
petitioners.
ORDER
Regard being had to the similitude of the controversy involved in the
present review petitions, they have been heard analogously and disposed of
by this common order.
The present review petitions are filed under Order 47 Rule read with
Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of common
order dated 11.03.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.25778 of 2022 and others,
whereby all the writ petitions were disposed of in the light of the judgment
passed in the case of Hariram & Anr. V/s Tribal Affairs Department & Ors.
(Writ Petition No.5258 of 2019, decided on 24.11.2023).
Counsel for the applicant / State submit that the writ petitions were
disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Hariram & Anr.
(supra), but the cases were not identical.
Counsel for the non-applicant supported the impugned order and
submitted that the case is squarely covered by the judgment passed in the
case of Hariram & Anr. (supra). He also submitted that before passing the
4 RP-71-2026
impugned order, the learned Single Judge has given time to counsel for the
State to examine the same and after that he submitted before the Court that
the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the
order impugned, this Court finds that the order was passed after giving
opportunity to the counsel for the State to examine that whether the cases of
the writ petitioners are squarely covered by the judgment of Hariram & Anr.
(supra) or not. After verification, the counsel for the State has stated that the
issue is covered by the said judgment. Even otherwise, after the arguments,
we find that the cases are squarely covered by the said judgment. No case is
made out for review as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
In view of the above, all the present Review Petitions are dismissed.
Let a photocopy of this order be kept in the record of all the connected
review petitions.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
Divyansh
