← Library
Orissa High CourtRVWPET/66/2014disposed off

Bijendra Pr.Tiwari v. Union Of India Andors.

2022-11-22Dr. Justice S. Muralidhar (Cj),Mr. Justice Murahari Sri Raman2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

RVWPET No.66 of 2014 Bijendra Prasad Tiwari ....

Petitioner Ms. Pami Rath, Advocate -versusUnion of India and others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. Debasish Tripathy, C.G.C. for Union of India

CORAM:

THE CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICE M.S. RAMAN Order No.

ORDER

22.11.2022 32.

1. This review petition has been filed pursuant to the leave granted by the Supreme Court of India by its order dated 4th April 2014 in SLP (C) CC 4930 of 2014 against the order dated 30th August 2012 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16754 of 2010. The said order of the Supreme Court of India reads as under: "Delay condoned.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that a copy of the Report of the Handwriting Expert was not supplied to him, extract of the Report is also reflected at page 95 of the SLP paper book but this contention is not seen to be examined by the High Court. Further, the High Court has not stated reasons for dismissal of the writ petition.

Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move the High Court by way of a review, within a period of three weeks. If a review is filed within the time stipulated, the High Court will examine the same and pass appropriate orders on the merits of the case, in accordance law.

The special leave petition is disposed of, as above."

2. Although in the present review petition, counter affidavit, rejoinder affidavit and a reply to the said rejoinder have also been filed, the facts remains that the order dated 30th August 2012, does not spell out the reasons for dismissal of the writ petition.

3. On that short ground the order dated 30th August 2012 is hereby reviewed and W.P.(C) No.16754 of 2010 is restored to the file of the Division Bench. The counter and rejoinder filed in the present review petition will be placed on the record of the said writ petition and can be relied upon by the parties in the said writ petition, which has been restored to file.

4. The review petition is accordingly disposed of. (Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge S.K. Guin