Sri Keshab Chakraborty Son Of Late ... vs The Secretary Cum Commissioner
2024 Latest Caselaw 1337 Tri

Tripura High Court

Sri Keshab Chakraborty Son Of Late ... vs The Secretary Cum Commissioner on 6 August, 2024

                                 Page 1 of 2




                      HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                        _A_G_A_R_T_A_L_A_
                      Review Petition No.16 of 2024
Sri Keshab Chakraborty son of late Dhirendra Chakraborty resident of Taltala,
Madhyapara, Bardowali, P.O. & P.S. A.D. Nagar, District- West Tripura.
                                                        ...... Petitioner(s)
                            VERSUS
1. The Secretary Cum Commissioner, Department of Forest, Government of
Tripura, Civil Secretariat, New Capital Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C.,
District- West Tripura.
2. Tripura Forest Development Corporation Limited Abhoynagar, P.S. N.C.C.,
District- West Tripura.
3. The Managing Director, Tripura Forest Development Corporation Ltd.,
Abhoynagar, P.S. N.C.C. District, West Tripura.
4. The Secretary, Department of Industries, Civil Secretariat, New Capital
Complex, P.O. Kunjaban, P.S. N.C.C., District- West Tripura.
5. The Director of Industries, Government of Tripura, Gurkhabasti, P.O.
Kunjaban, Pin-799010, P.S. N.C.C, District- West Tripura.
                                                       ...... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner(s)     : Mr. D.C. Roy, Advocate

For Respondent(s)     : Mr. Kohinoor N Bhattacharya, G.A.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. APARESH KUMAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. PURKAYASTHA =O=R=D=E=R=

06/08/2024 The impugned judgment dated 27.02.2024 passed in WP(C)

No.21 of 2024 was upheld as this Court did not find any error therein. In the

present review petition, petitioner seeks to rely upon certain documents at

(Annexure-A), which is an Office Order dated 19.02.2009 and (Annexure-

B), a Memorandum dated 06.02.2009 to seek review of the impugned

judgment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly submits that

these two documents were not on record before the Writ Court or the

Appellate Court but these documents are vital to consider the prayer of the

petitioner relating to regularization in service.

However, on that ground, we are not satisfied that a case for

review of the impugned judgment has been made out. The appeal was

decided on the basis of the materials and documents on record. The order of

the Writ Appellate Court, therefore, did not suffer from any mistake

apparent on the face of record as these documents were not on record. Then,

learned counsel for the petitioner seeks liberty to approach the learned Writ

Court. Without observing anything on the merits of the contention of the

petitioner, since no grounds for review are made out, the instant review

petition is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to approach the Writ Court for

review of the judgment passed in WP(C) No.21 of 2024. We make it clear

that we have not observed anything on the entertainability of the proposed

review petition.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(S.D. PURKAYASTHA) J                                       (APARESH KUMAR SINGH) CJ




DIPESH DEB          Digitally signed by DIPESH DEB
                    Date: 2024.08.07 18:01:00 +05'30'