Patna High CourtC. REV./272/2013dismissed

Subhawati Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-17Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.272 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3531 of 2013 ====================================================== Subhawati Devi, Wife of Chandrajeet Kumar, Resident of VillageSurwania, P.S. - Mirganj, District - Gopalganj. .... Petitioner .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Director, I.C.D.S. Samaj Kalyan Bibhag (Social Welfare Department), Bihar, Patna.

3. The Secretary, Samaj Kalyan Bibhag, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Deputy Secretary, Samaj Kalyan Bibhag, Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Collector, Gopalganj.

6. The District Program Officer, Gopalganj.

7. The Child Development Project Officer, Hathuwa, Gopalganj. .... Respondents .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Kumar For the Opp. Party/s : Mr. Saroj Kumar Sharma, AC to AAG-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 17-08-2016 Heard the parties.

This review application has been filed for review of the order dated 22.2.2013 passed in CWJC No. 3531 of 2013 by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha as his Lordship then was which runs as follows:

"After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this application.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn but it is made clear that the petitioner will have no right to move this Court again for the same cause of action." A plain reading of the order under review itself would render the review application devoid of merits for once

Patna High Court C. REV. No.272 of 2013 (3) dt.17-08-2016 the writ petition was withdrawn after some arguments, it is within the jurisdiction of the Writ Court to issue a restraint on the writ petitioner to move again for the same cause of action. Even though one of the grounds raised by the review petitioner is, that the withdrawal was made without her instruction but considering that the order under review was passed after some arguments advanced by the petitioner, even this ground would not be sufficient to call for a review.

The review application is accordingly dismissed. (Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/- U