Patna High CourtC. REV./55/2015dismissed

Sugandha Devi @ Sugandha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-11-09Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.55 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21010 of 2012 =========================================================== Sugandha Devi @ Sugandha Kumari Wife of Sri Saroj Kumar, Resident of village and Post- Chaturbhuj Piprahi, Bhaya Laukha, P.S.- Laukha, District- Madhubani .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Deputy Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga

4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani

5. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani

6. The Child Development Project Officer, Khutauna, Madhubani

7. The Mukhiya cum Chairman, Gram Panchayat Chaturbhuj Piprahi, Block Laukaha, District Madhubani .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. SUNIL KR. MANDAL =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 09-11-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State.

The order passed by the writ court was carried in appeal, which was LPA No.468 of 2014. A copy of the said order of the Division Bench is Annexure-5 to the review application. On reading of the order dated 29.01.2015, it emerges that the Division Bench allowed the petitioner to withdraw the appeal and file a review challenging the findings, which were given by the District Magistrate, Madhubani, which was said to have not been challenged in the writ petition.

Patna High Court C. REV. No.55 of 2015 dt.09-11-2016 2 / 2 After going through the review application, the Court does not find that there is any specific pointed challenge in consonance with the leave, which was granted by the Division Bench to the petitioner. The leave to file review does not tantamount to an open ended challenge to reargue his writ afresh, as a second opportunity to the petitioner.

Nothing has been brought on record to show that the finding given by the District Magistrate, Madhubani with regard to the ward being dominated by scheduled caste people and the manner in which the petitioner was selected in violation of the guidelines relating to such selection is incorrect.

Be that as it may, no case for review is made out. Review application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) S.Kumar/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.11.2016 Transmission Date