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 :
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.
3. The order dated 23.01.2025, passed by learned Single Judge was challenged in WA No. 184 of 2025. The said writ appeal was also dismissed after hearing the parties vide order dated 18.03.2025 upholding the order passed by learned Single Judge.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner would submit that, the review petition is maintainable even after dismissal of the SLP by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The SLP filed by the petitioner is dismissed in limine and not on merits. Referring the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of “Khoday Distilleries Limited and
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.
Inherent power to review exists when decisions are made without jurisdiction, allowing for restoration of appeal to avoid injustice.
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
