H.N.Verma v. State Of Chhattisgarh

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 60 of 2019 {Arising out of order dated 15.06.2015, passed in Writ Appeal No. 305 of 2015} H.N. Verma S/o Late Shri Mahaveer Mehto, Aged About 72 Years, R/o Ward No. 6 Maharana Pratap Ward, North Ring Road, Kedarpur, Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh.

---- Petitioner(s)

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

2. Joint Director, Agriculture, Bilaspur Division District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

3. Sub Divisional Officer (Agriculture) Lormi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Uttam Pandey, Advocate.

For Respondents-State :

Shri Gagan Tiwari, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy, Judge Order on Board Per, P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Chief Justice.

24.09.2019

1. The Review is sought for in respect of the judgment dated 15.06.2015 passed by this court in Writ Appeal No.305 of 2015.

2. Going by the factual aspects pleaded in the Review Petition, the petitioner admits that the said verdict (Annexure P/3) was sought to be challenged by filing SLP before the Apex Court, wherein interference was declined and the SLP came to be dismissed on 02.11.2015.

3. The grievance is that, subsequently, Annexure P/1 verdict has been passed by this Court granting relief to some similarly situated persons, which made the petitioner to turn around and file this review application. Obviously, the application is belated by more than 1000 days.

-24. The said delay is sought to be condoned by filing IA No.1 and absolutely no reason is given therein, except the fact that he came to know of Annexure P/1 verdict granting benefits to the similarly situated persons only recently. It is settled law that subsequent ruling cannot be a ground to constitute any error apparent on the face of record so as to have the power of review exercised by this Court. There is no merit in the petition to condone the delay and so also to entertain the review petition.

5. They are dismissed accordingly.

Sd/- Sd/- (P.R. Ramachandra Menon) (P. Sam Koshy) Chief Justice Judge inder