← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/108/2015dismissed

Holiram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2015-10-05Hon'Ble The Chief Justice,Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 108 of 2015 Holiram S/o Late Ronha, aged about 56 years, Working as Gangman in PWD R/o village Bodhapara, Post Kanteli, Tahsil and District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Pubic Works, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. Engineer-in-Chief, PWD Sirpur Bhawan, Civil Lines, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Chief Engineer, PWD Division Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

4. Executive Engineer, PWD Division, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Shri Ashok Patil, Advocate.

For Respondents/State :

Ms. Madhunisha Sigh, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, J.

Order on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 05/10/2015 1.

I.A. No. 1 has been filed to condone delay of 10 days in filing review application. Considering the duration, delay is condoned. 2.

The present review application arises from order dated 4.8.2015 in Writ Appeal No. 375 of 2015, the Special Leave Petition against which has also been dismissed on 11.9.2015.

3.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in limine does not bar the maintainability of the review application.

4.

While the simple proposition urged on behalf of Petitioner is not in dispute, the grounds urged in support of review application in paragraph 9 is that due to change in circumstances after passing of the judgment by this Court, some important facts and documents have come to light and which are required to be considered.

5.

If the Petitioner was not vigilant in placing all relevant materials before the Court and seeks to become wiser by passage of time, that does not constitute sufficient ground as an error apparent on the face of record to maintain review application.

6.

The review application is dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Subbu