Patna High CourtC. REV./406/2016dismissed

Satyendra Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-23Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.406 of 2016 In LPA 1849 of 2010 ====================================================== Satyendra Kumar Son of Late Ganga Prasad Gupta resident of Village & P.O. Raniganj Bazar, P.S. - Bairiya, District - Balia (Uttar Pradesh), at present residing at Village - Kushar, P.O. - Jhajhawa Bazar, P.S. - Mohammadpur, District - Gopalganj, Bihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Director, Panchayat Raj cum Additional Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Directorate of Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner, Department of Rural Development, Directorate of Panchayati Raj Bihar, Patna.

4. The Zila Parishad, Gopalganj, through its Chairman, At + P.O. + District - Gopalganj.

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner cum Chief Executive Officer, Gopalganj, At + P.O. + P.S. & District - Gopalganj. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Maheshwar Dhar Dwivedi For the Respondent/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar (Sc Xi) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) 3.

23-02-2017 I.A. No. 7448 of 2016 There is delay in filing the Review Application.

For the reasons mentioned in the petition, the delay in filing the Review Application is condoned. Accordingly, Interlocutory Application No.

7448 of 2016 stands disposed of.

Re: Civil Review No. 406 of 2016

Patna High Court C. REV. No.406 of 2016 (3) dt.23-02-2017 Learned counsel for the review petitioner, who was the unsuccessful writ petitioner and the unsuccessful appellant in the Letters Patent Appeal, seeks remand of the matter all over again. That is not permissible in a review application. If the review petitioner is aggrieved by the judgment of this Court, his remedy is by an appeal against the judgment. The review application cannot be treated as a second innings in the litigation. This review application is, thus, dismissed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/- U