The Union Of India And ORS v. Kali Nath Rai
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.511 of 2017 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11853 of 2017 ===========================================================
1. The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, District - Vaishali (Bihar).
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur, P.O. - Sonepur, District - Saran (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur, P.O. - Sonepur, District - Saran (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Sonepur, P.O. - Sonepur, District - Saran (Bihar).
6. The Assistant Railway Operating Manager, East Central Railway, Sonepur, P.O. - Sonepur, District - Saran (Bihar).
7. The Station Superintendent, East Central Railway, Shitalpur (Bihar). .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
Kali Nath Rai Son of Rama Nand Rai working as Substitute (Group-D) under Station Superintendent, East Central Railway, Shitalpur (Bihar). .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dr. Anand Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date: 30-07-2018 Petitioners are seeking review of the order dated 20.11.2017 passed in C.W.C.J. No.11853 of 2017. In course of hearing of the application, learned counsel representing the petitioners is unable to point out any error of record, all that have been tried to be argued are in the nature of seeking reconsideration of the entire writ application which we decline to do
Patna High Court C. REV. No.511 of 2017 dt.30-07-2018 considering the scope and ambit of the review jurisdiction as enunciated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SASI (DEAD) through Legal Representatives vs. Aravindakshan Nair and Ors. reported in (2017) 4 S.C.C 692.
We are, however, inclined to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners to waive the imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/- as have been ordered earlier. Save and except that we delete the imposition of cost of Rs.50,000/-, finding no merit the review application is dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Arvind/R.R.Ojha AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date01.08.2018 Transmission Date