Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav S/o Permeshwar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioner's review against prior dismissal of writ appeal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's review jurisdiction scope and counsel representation. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 3. claims of procedural violations in departmental inquiry. (Para 5 , 11) |
| 4. reiterated limits of review and finality of past decisions. (Para 21) |
| 5. final decision to dismiss the review petition. (Para 22) |
ORDER :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 18.03.2025, passed by this Court in WA No.184 of 2025, whereby the writ appeal filed by the review petitioner was dismissed.
2. The review petitioner filed a WPS No. 3492 of 2018 challenging the order dated 02.04.2018 and 18.09.2017, passed by Commissioner, Surguja division, place Ambikapur and Zila Panchayat, Jashpur, whereby the petitioner was held guilty in the departmental enquiry and penalty was imposed for stoppage of four annual increments with cumulative effect. The orders were challenged in the WPS No. 3492 of 2018 on the ground that, the petitioner was not given any opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and the documents were not supplied, which is violative of principles of natural
The court reinforced that review petitions are not an opportunity to re-argue cases or appeal decisions already made unless clear, patent errors exist.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review applications cannot substitute appeals and must adhere to strict limitations, focusing solely on apparent errors without introducing new arguments or counsel.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
A review application filed by a subsequent counsel who had not argued the original case is not maintainable.
The court emphasized that review powers are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to substitute a previous judgment or reargue the case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
