Sushil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.220 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17808 of 2010 ====================================================== Sushil Kumar Singh Son of Sri Tapeshwar Singh Resident of Village - Sardiha, P.O. - Sardiha, P.S. - Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

3. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa.

4. Block Development Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa.

5. Programme Officer, Simri Bakhtiyarpur Block, District - Saharsa.

6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Sardiha, P.S. - Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District - Saharsa.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhirendra Nath Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ga 4 Ashok Priyadarshi ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 20-01-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. The application seeks review of the order dated 28.08.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17808 of 2010. Precisely, two reasons were assigned for not invoking the writ jurisdiction of the Court. The stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit was noticed and thereafter it was held that since the disputed questions of facts are involved, it shall not be an appropriate exercise of jurisdiction.

Counsel for the petitioner states that the documents placed along with the writ petitioner in support of the title/possession was

Patna High Court C. REV. No.220 of 2015 (2) dt.20-01-2016 2/2 subsequently corrected by the respondent-State vide Annexure-1 of the review petition. This Court therefore committed error in considering the stand of the State in the light of the facts disclosed in the counter affidavit.

As noticed above, the writ petition was dismissed setting out two reasons. The another reason still survives. In the garb of review, the Court would not permit the petitioner to get the matter re-heard on merit.

Considering the narrow confines of the jurisdiction and the aforesaid facts, this Court is not inclined to allow the application. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U