A review petition cannot be used as a means to challenge the merits of a previous decision, and the court found no apparent error warranting review of its order to rehabilitate displaced persons.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Civil Review has been preferred for reviewing the order dated 18.11.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1091 of 2014 whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi and the Municipal Commissioner, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi were directed to take up the matter of rehabilitation of the members of the respondent no. 1 as a special case and to make all possible endeavour to rehabilitate them at some suitable place, subject to strict scrutiny of their identity as the displaced persons of Kutchery Market.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that respondent no. 1 filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 1091 of 2014 for issuance of direction upon the respondents of the said case to rehabilitate the members of the petitioner-Association by providing space within court compound, Ranchi or at any other suitable place within Ranchi Town for running business for their livelihood as they were evicted from the ‘court compound haat’ by illegally and arbitrarily demolishing their structures and sheds within 72 hours of issuance of general notice dated 11.04.2011 by the Circle Officer, Town, Ranchi. Further prayer was made to provide adequate compensation to the displaced members of the respondent no. 1 as they were illegally deprived of their livelihood leading to acute financial crisis.

3. It is further submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18.11.2019, the relevant paragraphs of which read as under:-

“3. A supplementary affidavit dated 07.11.2019 has been filed by the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi annexing a copy of letter dated 26.11.2011 issued by the erstwhile Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi to the Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi. As per the said letter, since there was no Government land available near ‘Kutchery’ for rehabilitating 152 displaced shopkeepers of Kutchery market, a request was made that they may be rehabilitated in the proposed market complex at Jaipal Singh Stadium or at Doranda Bazaar.

4. A counter affidavit dated 29.08.2019 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 8 – Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi stating inter alia that the market complex constructed at Jaipal Singh Stadium is meant for rehabilitation of the street vendors and members of the petitioner-Association cannot be categorized as street vendors as they were operating their shops on the Government land at Kutchery market and not on the street.

5. Be that as it may. Undisputedly, the respondent no. 4 – the Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi after evicting the members of the petitioner-Association from Kutchery market had requested the Chief Executive Officer, Ranchi Municipal Corporation, Ranchi vide letter dated 26.11.2011 to rehabilitate them in Jaipal Singh Stadium or at Doranda market. Though it is also a fact that the members of the petitioner-Association were not carrying on their businesses on the street, however, the respondent no. 4 cannot back out from the stand taken in the letter dated 26.11.2011. It also appears that there has been no persuasion on the part of the respondent no. 4 in ensuring that the members of the petitioner- Association are appropriately rehabilitated in co- operation with the respondent no. 8. Merely because the members of the petitioner-Association were not carrying on their business on the street, they cannot be discriminated as against the street vendors who