Patna High CourtC. REV./204/2015dismissed

Reshmi Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-13Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No. 204 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1314 of 2014 ====================================================== Reshmi Sinha wife of Late Rabindra Prasad resident of village - Flat No - 104, Rupa Apartment, Sainagar Road No - 06(C), P.S. - Gardanibagh, P.O. - G.P.O., District - Patna.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Finance Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna

3. The Chief Engineer Scheme and Monitoring Water Resource Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary - 2 (Treasury Management) Water Resources Department, Patna.

5. The Treasury Officer, Patna Sector, Irrigation Bhawan, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Sichai Bhawan, Patna Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushalesh Choudhary Mr. Anil Kumar Choudhary For the Respondent/s : AC to GA-1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

13-01-2016 Heard Sri Kaushalesh Choudhary, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Anil Kumar Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Govt. Advocate - 1. The present petition has been filed for reviewing order dated 19-12-2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1314 of 2014. By the said order, after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length by a reasoned order, the writ petition was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to

Patna High Court C. REV. No.204 of 2015 (2) dt.13-01-2016 2/2 inadvertence, certain relevant documents were not brought on record of the writ petition, whereas, those documents were in possession of the petitioner, which have been brought on record in the present review petition.

The Court is of the opinion that once the writ petition is decided on the basis of materials available on record, this Court is not at all entitled to review its earlier order. If the petitioner feels aggrieved with the order of the writ court, she would be at liberty to avail the remedy against the order of this Court. At least in review petition, no such order can be passed. The review petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U