Shahnawaz Anwar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.69 of 2017 IN LPA 639 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Shahnawaz Anwar, Son of Md. Mustafa, Resident of Mohalla Khatari, P.S. Arrah (Town), District- Bhojpur at Arrah.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Patna through its Chairman.

3. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna.

5. The Joint Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna.

6. The Director, Bihar Tourism Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

7. The Principal Secretary, Bihar Tourism Department, Old Secretariat, Patna.

8. The Principal Secretary, Department of Vigilance, 4th Floor, Suchna Bhawan, New Secretariat, Patna.

9. Sri Kumar Madan, Son of Dashrath Yadav.

10. Sri Pradip Kumar Yadav, Son of Indradev Yadav.

11. Sri Sudhir Kumar, Son of Brij Nandan Pandit.

12. Sri Rajesh Kumar Dinkar, Son of Bihari Ravi Das.

13. Sri Birendra Kumar Singh, Son of Anirudh Singh.

14. Sri Shohail Pervez, Son of Noor Mohammad.

15. Sri Anil Kumar, son of Anandi Prasad Yadav.

16. Sri Shashi Prakash Gupta, Son of Radhe Prasad.

17. Sri Surya Ketu Das, Son of Jantari Das.

18. Sri Man Mohan Kumar, Serial No.- 9 to 18 are Swagatak (Receptionist) C/o the Director, Department of Tourism Old Secretariat, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 19-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

This review application has been preferred seeking review of the order dated 27.1.2017 passed by the Division Bench in

Patna High Court C. REV. No.69 of 2017 dt.19-07-2017 2/3 L.P.A. No.639 of 2016.

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Arabindakshan Nair And Anr., (2017) 4 SCC 692 in which the principle of law has been laid down in paras 6 to 9 in the following manner, we find no case made out for review. Paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the judgment reads as under:

6. The grounds enumerated therein are specific. The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. The Court passing the order is entitled to review the order, if any of the grounds specified in the aforesaid provision are satisfied.

7. in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V. State of A.P., the Court while dealing with the scope of review had opined: "11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an "error apparent on the face of the record". The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical State of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error". (emphasis supplied)

8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi,the Court after

Patna High Court C. REV. No.69 of 2017 dt.19-07-2017 3/3 referring to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, held thus:

"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"." The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out the nature, scope and ambit of power to be exercised. The error has to be selfevident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. We have adverted to the aforesaid aspects only to highlight the nature of review proceedings.

In view of the above, the application is rejected. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 25.7.2017 Transmission Date N/A