High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/124/2019rejected

Kumari Sheetal Sahu v. State Of Chhattisgarh

2019-08-05Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 124 of 2019 Kumari Sheetal Sahu D/o Late Shri Alok Sahu, Aged About 30 Years R/o New Panchsheel Nagar, Qr. No. H/43, Tahsil - Raipur, Police Station - Civil Line, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Secretariat, Mahanadi Bhawan, Police Station And Post Rakhi, Atal Nagar , Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. Engineer - In - Chief, Office Of The Engineer - In - Chief, Water Resources, Department, Sihava Bhawan, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

3. Chief Engineer, Office Of The Chief Engineer, Mahanadi Project, Water Resources Department, Civil Line, G. E. Road, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State :

Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 05/08/2019

1. The review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 04.01.2019 passed WPS 8470/2018. The review petition has been filed in the light of the of the Annexure P-7 dated 12.04.2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner already has been turned down by the respondent- State.

2. According to the petitioner, this fact could not be brought to the notice of the petitioner at the time of the disposal of WPS 8470/2018 and

therefore, the writ petition got disposed off with a direction to the respondents to take a decision at the earliest.

3. Given the fact that claim of the petitioner already stood decided vide order dated 12.04.2016, this Court is of the opinion that no strong case has been made out of reviewing the order dated 04.01.2019. Since the order dated 12.04.2016 was never challenged by the petitioner nothing precludes the petitioner from challenging the same in an appropriate proceedings afresh.

4. With the aforesaid liberty, the present review petition as such stands rejected.

Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Rohit