The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a review petition challenging the dismissal of a writ appeal. The court held that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not permit re-appreciation of facts or merits.
The review petition is dismissed. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 71 of 2024
1 - The South Eastern Coalfield Limited , Through Chairman cum Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur, C.G. (Wrongly Mentioned In The Impugned Order as Managing Director)
2 - Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Church Mines (Ro), Churcha Colliery Dist. Koriya, Baikunthpur, C.G.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1 - Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Late Sushil Kumar Singh Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 02, Maharana Pratap Colony, Churcha, Shivpur Churcha Colliery, Dist. Koriya (Baikunthpur), C.G.
---- Respondent
For Petitioners : Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Yogesh Chandra, Advocate
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board
Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge 15.04.2024
1. When the case is called for hearing, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel appearing for Respondent, are present.
2. The petitioners have filed the present review petition against the order dated 19/01/2024 passed by this Court in WA No. 16/2024
2
whereby the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the petitioners herein.
3. From the perusal of the pleadings, it transpires that the petitioners seek review of the order impugned on the ground that the grounds raised by the petitioners in the memo of writ appeal, that the petitioners did not challenge the finding recorded by the medical board, has not been considered properly. In the present review petition, the petitioners have claimed review of the order impugned on its merits which amounts to reconsider the merits of the case. While deciding the writ petition by the learned Single Judge of trial Court and while deciding the writ appeal by this Court, the petitioners were found entitled for the benefit of dependent employment and directed the present review petitioners/ writ appellants to take necessary steps for passing appropriate orders on the application for dependent employment within four months from the date of receipt of copy of order passed by this Court.
4. We have perused the impugned judgment under review.
5. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on fact of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is 1
impermissible in law (pl.See Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai ,
1 (1987) 1 SCC 61
3
Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. Terai Tea Co. and Ors3, Lily Thomas etc. V. Union of India & Ors.4, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors.5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair & Ors. 6.)
6. The grounds raised by review petitioners in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the fact of record in the impugned judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction .
7. According, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s).
Sd/Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice
Sagrika
2 (1995) 1 SCC 170
3 (1996) 10 SCC 174
4 AIR 2000 SC 1650
5 (2013) 2 SCC 1
6 (2017) 4 SCC 692
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds raised in the writ appeal memo regarding the medical board finding can be considered in a review petition.
Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment warranting invocation of review jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya PillaiExplained¶20
Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai , 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 3 · Who else cites this
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryReferred¶24
Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt) 2, 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 · Who else cites this
Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and Ors.Referred¶24
Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. V. Terai Tea Co. and Ors 3, 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 · Who else cites this
Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶24
Lily Thomas etc. V. Union of India & Ors. 4, 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 · Who else cites this
Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors.Referred¶24
Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & Ors. 5, 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair & Ors.Referred¶24
Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair & Ors. 6, 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Chairman cum Managing Director
Sub Area Manager, South Eastern Coalfields Limited
Ajay Kumar Singh
Ramesh Sinha
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
