B.K. Manish v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Another
This judgment came from a scanned document and its text layer is unreliable — words may be garbled. Check the original PDF before relying on any passage.
^T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
DlvlsSon Bench Review Petition No...-L?^bf 2014 [Of final order of Division Bench-II of this hon'ble court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 6 of 2014, dated- 31/01/2014] PETITIONER:
^- B.K. Manish, S/o- Late Satyanarayan, Aged about 34 pn«ntedbyshri"^:1^ Raipur (C.G.) Arted........" ^l^t 1^1 "'VERSUS RESPONDENTS:
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Chief Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.)
2. Union oflndia Secretary- Dept. of Personnel & Training, North Bl.ock, New Delhi REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE .91 OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT RULES. 2007.
XV-OR-IS~] ^ Review Petition No. 17 of 2014 (IN CHAMBER) Hon'ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Mr. Inder Sinah Uboweia. J J 03.03.2014 The petitioner is*seeking review of the order dated 31st of January, 2014 passed in W.P.(PIL) No. 06/2014. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a Tribal Rights Activist, had filed Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for issuance of directions to the concerned authorities to act in accordance with law and statutory Rules and guidelines while selecting DGP of Chhattisgarh. We found that no documents were filed in the PIL to substantiate that the authorities were not acting in accordance with law. Thus the PiL was lacking in material particulars. We also found that the PIL was not maintainable because appointment of the DGP was a service matter. The petitioner has not raised any new ground in the review petition. Almost similar grounds have been raised. It appears that the petitioner wants a fresh hearing on the same issues in garb of the review petition.
Rule 90 (1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 provides that "Every application for review made upon the ground of the discovery of new and important matter or evidence within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be accompanied by an affidavit of the applicant together with documents, if any, relied upon and stating in clear terms what such new and important matter or evidence is, the effect or purport thereof W<{ ^4 ^^^^71^14- <l^^ri^-FS/1413/2011-50.,000.
0_ XV-OR-15 ReviewPetitionNo. 17 of2014 and that the same, after the exercise of due diligence was notwithin the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the timewhen the decree/order was passed."
A perusalofthe review petition would show that it is not based on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence within the meaning of order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In fact, the review petitioner has pressed into mption all old grounds which we have already considered while passing our orderdated 31st of January, 2014.
In view of the provisions of Rule 90 of the Rules 2007 as also order XLVtl Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, we do not find sufficient ground to entertain this review petition. The review petition, therefore, is rejected.
Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Inder Singh Uboweja Judge mr^^^g^S^,^T.I^Tri^-FS/i41-3/2011-50., 000,