Patna High CourtC. REV./246/2019dismissed

Lalan Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar

2019-11-19The Chief Justice -,Mr. Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.246 of 2019 In Letters Patent Appeal No.1508 of 2015 ====================================================== Lalan Prasad Singh S/o Sheo Raj Sinrgh Resident of Road N. 25F, Rajiv Nagar, Ps . Rajiv Nagar, District Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary,Rural Works Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna 3.

The Additional Secretary, Rural Works Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna 4.

The Officer on Special Duty, Rural Works Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna 5.

The Chief Engineer, Rural Works Department,Govt. of Bihar,Patna 6.

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar,Patna 7.

The Executive Engineer, Rural Works Department, Works Division, Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai 8.

The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna 9.

The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Patna 10.

The Director, Provident Fund, Govt. of India, Patna 11.

The District Provident Fund Officer, Laklhisarai ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv.

Mr.Vipin Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi (Aag6) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 19-11-2019 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioner has prayed for the following relief :-

Patna High Court C. REV. No.246 of 2019(3) dt.19-11-2019 2/3 "It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit this petition, issue notice to the respondents and after hearing the parties be further pleased to review the order dated 22.01.2019 passed in LPA No. 1508 of 2015 by the Division Bench ...."

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, 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

Patna High Court C. REV. No.246 of 2019(3) dt.19-11-2019 3/3 Verma 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) ( Dinesh Kumar Singh, J) Ashwini/DKS U