Vishnu Singh Thakur v. State Of Chhattisgarh
-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 142 of 2018 Vishnu Singh Thakur S/o Late Shri Amar Singh Thakur Aged About 61 Years Posted As Assistant Superintendent (Land Record), Collectorate Office, Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh, (Wrongly Written As Superintendent In The Writ Petition) ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Under Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
3. Deputy Secretary State Of Chhattisgarh, Revenue And Disaster Management Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
4. Director Land Record, Chhattisgarh Bhawan, Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh.
5. Collector Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. R. Pradhan, Advocate For State :
Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 30/11/2018
1. This is the third round of litigation, which has been initiated by the petitioner against an order of transfer which was first passed on 08.08.2018. The first round of litigation was got disposed off in WPS No. 5069/2018 on 08.08.2018, where the only relief this Court could grant to the petitioner was to approach the authorities by way of a representation.
2. The representation was dully considered and rejected, which led to the filing of the subsequent writ petition i.e. WPS No. 7072/2018. This Court had in very specific terms by a speaking order held that the writ petition
-2does not have any merits and has dismissed the same vide order dated 26.10.2018. The petitioner does not seem to have been aggrieved by the said order, in as much as he has not further challenged the said order. Now by way of a review, he seeks for a modification of the order dated 26.10.2018 in the light of a representation being decided in respect of some other litigant, whose writ petition was disposed of by this Court permitting the petitioner therein to make a representation to the higher authorities in the department and on which it appears to have been decided in his favour. The said ground can never be a ground for review of an order.
3. So far as review jurisdiction is concerned, the law is by now well settled. A Review petition could be entertained only in the event of there being an error apparent on the face of record and an error which is out rightly and glaringly visible in the order. From the pleadings in the writ petition, there does not appear to be any ground which has been raised by the petitioner showing any error on the face of record or an error which is glaringly visible. Only on the ground of some relief, some petitioner has got from the State Government; a review petition can never be entertained.
4. This Court is of the firm view that the present review petition is a totally misconceived review petition filed by the petitioner against a transfer order which was passed as early as on August, 2018. The petitioner for the reason best known is still clinging to the said order and wants an interference to the said at any cost, which is not at all appreciable, so far as a government employee is concerned.
5. The review petition thus being totally devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed with cost. Cost is to be imposed as the petitioner has not
-3once but repeatedly wasting the valuable time of this Court, particularly when we are not able to give more time to decide old matters. The petition therefore is dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the petitioner within a period of 30 days to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Bilaspur. If the amount is not paid within the stipulated period, the amount should be recovered from the employee by initiating appropriate recovery proceedings.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved