Chattisgarh High CourtRadhiya Bai vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 October, 2008Author:Satish K AgnihotriBench:Satish K AgnihotriHIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      



                 Review Petition No. 53 of 2009





              1.      Radhiya  Bai

               2.      Anita  Bai

               3.      Rakesh  Kumar

               4.      Rohit  Kumar
                                ...Petitioners



               Versus


              1.      The  State  of Chhattisgarh

               2.      The Collector, Rajnandgaon

               3.      Deputy  Superintendent of Police

               4.      Assistant  Commissioner

               5.      Commissioner,  Tribal Welfare  Department
                                                             ...Respondents




     (Application  for Review of the order  dated  1.10.2008
     passed in W.P.(C) No. 2698/2007)



!     Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners

^      Shri  M. P. S. Bhatia, Deputy Govt. Advocate  for  the respondents




Honble Justice Satish K Agnihotri


       Dated:10/07/2009



:       Judgment


                          ORDER (oral)(Passed on this 10th day of July, 2009)

         Heard.I.A.No.1 is ordered, as prayed for. Delay is
condoned.1.   The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 1.10.2008,

       passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2698 of 2007 (Radhiya Bai &

       others Vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & others), with the prayer

       to direct the respondents/authorities that the petitioners are

       entitled to all the reliefs as provided under the Madhya

       Pradesh/Chhattisgarh Anusuchit Jati Evam Janjati (Akashmikata

       Yojana) Niyam, 1995 (for short "the Rules, 1995).2.   This Court by order dated 1.10.2008, passed in W.P.(C)No.

       2698 of 2007, having examined the matter in detail, held that the

       petitioners are entitled to relief under the provisions of

       Rule 7 clause 20 of the Rules, 1995. The petition was allowed to

       that extent.3.   Thereafter, the petitioners filed the Review Petition No. 50

       of 2008, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 24.11.2008. The

       submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is

       that the above review petition was withdrawn as this Court was of

       the opinion that the petitioners are entitled to all the reliefs,

       as once it has been held that the benefit of Rule 1995 is to be

       extended to the petitioners.4.   Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application for grant
of relief to the respondents/authorities, as per the direction of
this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2698/2007 by order dated 1.10.2008. The
respondents/authorities by letter dated 24.1.2009 only paid  Rs.
2,00,000/- to the petitioners.  Thus, the petitioners have filed
this review petition for a direction that they are entitled to
all the reliefs in accordance with the Rules, 1995.5.   The submission of Shri Kotecha, learned counsel for the

       petitioners that the Review Petition No. 50/2008 was withdrawn,

       as this Court was of the opinion that the petitioners are

       entitled to all the reliefs, is misconceived. The petitioners

       cannot read more than the words recorded in the order. The order

       dated 24.11.2008 reads as under"Learned    counsel   appearing    for    the
          petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission  of
          this court to withdraw this review petition.
          2}   It is ordered as prayed for.3}   Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed
               as withdrawn."The  Supreme Court inState of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas

       Shrinivas Nayakand another1 observed as under :"4.  ..We are afraid that we cannot launch into an
          enquiry  as to what transpired in the High  Court.
          It  is  simply  not done. Public policy  bars  us.
          Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial
          record  are unquestionable. They are not  open  to
          doubt.  Judges cannot be dragged into  the  arena.
          Judgments  cannot be treated as mere  counters  in
          the game of litigation. We are bound to accept the
          statement   of  the  Judges  recorded   in   their
          judgment,  as  to  what transpired  in  Court.  We
          cannot  allow  the statement of the Judges  to  be
          contradicted  by  statements  at  the  Bar  or  by
          affidavit and other evidence. If the Judges say in
          their  judgment that something was drawn, said  or
          admitted before them, that has to be the last word
          on the subject. The principle is well settled that
          statements of facts as to what transpired  at  the
          hearing,  recorded in the judgment of  the  Court,
          are  conclusive of the facts so stated and no  one
          can  contradict  such statements by  affidavit  or
          other evidence."6.   The dictum as laid down above, was approvingly referred inBhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.and others2

       andJagvir Singh and others Vs. State (Delhi Admn.)3.7.   The prayer and the grounds mentioned in the review petition

       appear to be misconceived. If the petitioners have any grievance

       of whatsoever nature, they may approach appropriate forum that

       may be available to them under provisions of law.8.   The petitioners have not pointed out any manifest error on

       the record and the petitioners have not further brought into the

       notice, any new facts which could not be produced earlier despite

       diligent efforts made by the petitioners. It is well settled

       principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of

       an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit

       ofOrder 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in

       exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court underArticle

       226of the Constitution, the petitioners have not produced any

       ground for review.9.   It appears that the petitioners by presentation of this

       review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case

       afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is

       not permissible and tenable in law. It is well settled principle

       of law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner

       should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which

       would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and

       the same is not sustainable in law.  ( See Smt. Meera Bhanjan Vs.

       Smt. Nirmala Kumar Chowdhary4, Lily Thomas etc.Vs. Union of

       India and others5,Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissaand

       others6,Government of T.N. and others Vs. M. Ananchu Asariand others7

       andKerala State Electricity Board Vs. Hitech Electrothermicsm &

       Hydropower Ltd., and others8.10.  As  a result and in view of the foregoing, the review

       petition is dismissed.J U D G E