Patna High CourtC. REV./59/2019dismissed

Mamta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-11-29The Chief Justice -,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.59 of 2019 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1367 of 2015 ====================================================== Mamta Kumari W/o Sri Jitendra Yadav Resident of Village- Isrichak, PostSarma, P.S.-Masaudhi, District-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary Social Welfare Director I.C.D.S. Bihar, Patna 2.

The Deputy Director, I.C.D.S., Patna 3.

The District Programme Officer, Patna 4.

The Child Development Officer, Masaudhi, District- Patna 5.

Lalilata Kumari W/o Late Suresh Yadav, Resident of Village-Isrichak, PostCharma, P.S.-Masaudhi, District-Patna ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha (GA-7) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 29-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "This application is being filed for reviewing the order dated 21.01.2019 passed in LPA No. 1367 of 2015 whereby and whereunder the Division Bench was pleased to dismiss the appeal."

The error, factual in nature, sought to be pointed out in this review application, cannot be allowed to be so done, moreso, when the review applicant failed to make necessary correction either before the Writ Court or the Appellate Court,

Patna High Court C. REV. No.59 of 2019(4) dt.29-11-2019 2/2 which is now sought to be agitated by this review application. Such error ought to have been brought to the notice of the Court at first point in time.

We do not find any reason to interfere with the well considered judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. In our considered view, there is neither any mistake nor error apparent on the face of record or sufficient reason so as to take in its sweep, a ground analogous to those specified in the statutory provisions. There is no material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermining its soundness or resulting into miscarriage of justice. Review is not an appeal in disguise entitling the party to be reheard, simply because the party wants a decision to be otherwise.

Keeping in view the principles laid down in Kamlesh Verms Versus Mayawati and others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 and Medical Council of India Versus Christian Medical College, Vellore & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 342, present petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) spandey/- ( Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) U