Dismissed

Sandeep Kumar Tiwari v. O. P. Vishwakarma

Chhattisgarh HC20 Jan 2023REVP/153/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge, relying on CPC principles, dismissed a review petition on the ground that the petitioner sought to raise the entire case afresh, converting review into an impermissible appeal without demonstrating manifest error.

What did the court decide?

Review petition dismissed.

What the court decided

Sandeep Kumar Tiwari Vs O. P. Vishwakarma — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Review Petition No. 153 of 2022

¶5

Sandeep Kumar Tiwari S/o Sh. Balkumund Tiwari Aged About 47 Years Working As Copa Instructor, Govt. Iti, Bemetara Durg Zone R/o Naya Para Behind Keju Rice Mill Durg DistrictDurg, Chhattisgarh. ---- Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

O.P. Vishwakarma Principal Govt. Industrial Training Institute, Deobhog, Sardapur Deobhog, Post Deobhog, DistrictGariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2. Sh. Awanish Kumar Sharan Director, Employment And Training (Training Wing) Directorate Employment And Training First Floor, 4th Block, Indirawati Bhawan, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondents

¶9

(Application for review of the order dated 5-9-2022 passed in CONT No.436 of 2022.

¶10

(By circulation in chamber)

¶11

S.B. :Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas

¶12

20-01-2023

¶13

The matter is taken up for consideration in the chamber under provisions of sub-rule (2) of Rule 90 under Chapter VI of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007.

¶14

The review petitioner seeks review of the order dated 5-92022 passed in Contempt Petition No.436 of 2022 merely on the ground that without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the question of law in its true perspective dismissed the contempt petition with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 20-2-2022 under the remedy available to him.

¶15

On going through the order dated 5-9-2022 passed in Contempt Petition No 436 of 2022, it is manifest that after hearing the learned counsel for all the parties and after considering all the aspects of the matter, this Court has passed the order which is sought to be reviewed herein.

¶16

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Ragupathi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2022 AIR (SC) 2301 would submit that by the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that punitive termination without enquiry is bad-in-law and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed that the appellant to be reinstated with continuity in service. This court, while disposing of the contempt petition, has given liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 22-2-2022 where he can raise all the grounds, therefore, this cannot be any apparent mistake on the face of record.

¶18

There is no other ground pointed out by the petitioner showing any manifest error on the record and have not further brought into the notice, any new facts, which could not be produced earlier despite diligent eforts 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 confned to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶19

It appears that the petitioner 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.

¶20

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: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others, (2005) 6 SCC 651}.

¶21

¶22

As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

(Narendra Kumar Vyas)

¶25

Judge

¶26

Raju

Sandeep Kumar Tiwari v. O. P. Vishwakarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Sandeep Kumar Tiwari v. O. P. Vishwakarma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kriparam Bhardwaj Vs State

Narayan and Ors. Vs the State of M.P.

Dinesh Verma Vs Miss. Richa Singh

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Vs Siyaram Basanti

Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs M/S Bilaspur Spinning Mills and Industries Ltd.

O.P.Singhal Vs State of Chhattisgarh