Sunita Mishra vs The State Of Bihar And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 5044 Patna

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                            CIVIL REVIEW No.9 of 2019
                                           In
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21605 of 2013
     ======================================================

Sunita Mishra W/o Late Purshottam Kumar Mishra Resident of Balaram Township, Qtr No. 8/97, P.O. N.S. Nagar, Bharatpur, Dist.-Angul (Orissa) at present residing at Village Belauri, Via Guthani, Dist.-Siwan (Bihar)

... ... Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Zonal Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India, East Central Zone, Jeevandeep building 6th. Floor, Exhibition Road, Patna

3. The Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation, Cuttack Divisional Office, Jeevan Prakash, Post Box No.36, Cuttack (Orissa)

... ... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Vishal Sourabh Mr. R.K. Sharma, Advocates For the Opposite Parties: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Mr. Abhimanyu Vatsa Mr. Rajni Kant Singh Mr. Sameer Sawarn, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 27-10-2021

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

counsel for the opposite parties.

2. The present review petition has been filed against the

order dated 09.10.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 21605 of 2013.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

through inadvertence, the petitioner's representations which had

been filed before the concerned authority (Annexure-5 series)

could not be brought to the notice of this Court. In that view of the Patna High Court C. REV. No.9 of 2019 dt.27-10-2021

matter, the writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the

petitioner to seek redressal of her grievance by way of statutory

remedy available in accordance with law. It is submitted that

despite these representations being filed before the authority, no

action is being taken and the representations are still pending.

4. After some arguments, learned counsel for the

petitioner fairly accepts that the grievance now sought to be raised

constitutes a fresh cause of action and cannot be treated as a

ground for review. As such, he seeks permission to withdraw the

review petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition as and when

the occasion may arise.

5. The review petition is accordingly dismissed as

withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty.

(Vikash Jain, J)

Ibrar//-

AFR/NAFR              NAFR
CAV DATE              N.A.
Uploading Date        01.11.2021
Transmission Date     N.A.