IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP(M) No.1771/2024 Date of Decision:.21.12.2024 State of HP .....Petitioner Versus Dr. D.R. Bharwal (deceased) through LRs. …..Respondents.

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Sanjay Dutt Vasudeva, Dy.

Advocate General.

For the Respondents: Nemo.

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (oral).

The present review petition has been preferred by the State against the impugned order/judgment dated 16.09.2023, passed in LPA No.178 of 2021, titled State of HP & Ors. Vs. Dr. D.R. Bharwal (deceased) through LRs and Ors., along with connected matters.

2. Admittedly judgment dated 16.09.2023 was assailed by the State by filing the SLPs (Civil) Diary No.26866 of 2024, titled the State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. D.R. Bharwal (deceased) through LRs and Others.

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

3. The aforesaid SLP was withdrawn by the State on 05.08.2024 by reserving its right to approach this High Court with an appropriate application for seeking clarification of impugned order(s) and accordingly on 05.08.2024, the SLP was disposed of with liberty as prayed for, without making any observation on the merits of such an application proposed to be filed.

4. Instead of filing any application seeking clarification, petitioners have preferred this review petition. Once the State had preferred the SLP and withdrew the same with liberty to file an application to seek clarification, we are of the considered opinion that except filing an application for clarification, State is not entitled to maintain any other petition including present review petition. Once the matter is settled in the Supreme Court on withdrawal of SLP reserving right only to seek clarification, the present petition is not maintainable.

5. Any finding recorded by the Supreme Court in SLP is binding upon the parties and therefore also State is not entitled for filing present review petition, as specifically a permission has been sought only to seek clarification of the impugned order/judgment. In this regard, reliance can be placed on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2000 (6) SCC 359, titled Kunhayammed & Ors. vs State of Kerala & Anr., decided on 19 July, 2000.

6. Even otherwise, on perusal of the order dated 16.09.2023 and taking into consideration the grounds taken in the present review petition as also pleaded by learned Advocate General, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record, illegality, irregularity or perversity warranting review of the impugned order/judgment.

7. Accordingly, the present application/review petition is dismissed being devoid of merits.

Petition is disposed of in aforesaid terms along with pending application(s), if any.

(Vivek Singh Thakur)

Judge (Bipin Chander Negi)

Judge

21st December, 2024 (Gaurav Rawat)