Poonam Sethi v. The Union Of India

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Review Petition No. 134 of 2020

1. Poonam Sethi, D/o Shri Jagdeesh Sethi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Haldi Badi Chirmiri, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Road Transport And Highways, Transport Bhawan 1 Parliament Street New Delhi 110001

2. Chairman, National Highways Authority Of India, NHAI Head Quarter, G 5 And 6, Sector 10, Dwarka, New Nelhi- 110075

3. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Collector Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaspur, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

6. Pushpa Manikpuri, D/o Late Shri Milan Das Manikpuri, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Gram And Post Mangla, P.S. Civil Lines, Tehsil And District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ----- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate For State :

Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Dy. A.G.

For U.o.I :

Mr. Amit Banerjee, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

Ramakant Mishra, A.S.G.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 17.11.2020

1. The present review petition has been filed seeking for review of the Order passed by this Court in WPC No. 816 of 2019, decided on 14.09.2020.

2. On due perusal of the pleadings and the grounds raised in the review petition, this Court is of the firm view that the grounds which have been

-2urged seeking review of the order, are not one which would be permissible under the review jurisdiction of the Court. All the grounds raised by the review petitioner are grounds which were raised during the course of hearing of the writ petition and thereafter this Court had disposed off the said writ petition.

3. Given the said fact that the grounds had been raised by the petitioners during the course of hearing of the original writ petition and this court after considering those facts had disposed of the Writ Petition, this Court does not find any strong case made out to review the order passed on 14.09.2020.

4. Reserving the right of the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies available to him. Needless to mention in the event if petitioner approaches the concerned authorities, they are expected to decide the objection and the claim of the petitioner, considering all the grounds raised by the petitioner on its own merits without being in any manner influenced by the order passed by this Court.

5. The present review petition, accordingly stands rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rahul