The High Court held that a review petition was maintainable in the absence of a binding precedent omission or error apparent on the face of the record.
The review application is dismissed. No order as to 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Review No.247 of 2012 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14941 of 2001
=========================================================== 1. Chandradeo Bhagat, S/o Sri Jag Mohan Bhagat, R/o Village - Rafiganj, P.O. Rafiganj, District - Aurangabad
.... .... Petitioners/Petitioners
Versus
.... .... Opposite Parties/Respondents
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Anirudh Kumar Verma, Adv. For the Respondents : Mr. Prasoon Sinha GA 2
Mr. Dilip Kumar, Adv.
=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 13-02-2015
This application is filed with a prayer to review the judgment dated 26.9.2011, passed in C.W.J.C. No.14941/01.
The special Bench has been constituted for the purpose of this and other similar cases. However, there is no representation for the petitioners.
We have perused the review petition as well as
Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2012 dt.13-02-2015
2/2
the connected record.
The judgment dated 26.9.2011 was rendered in a batch of writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No.6985/07 and eight other writ petitions, including C.W.J.C. No.14941/01. Detailed discussion was undertaken with reference to the binding precedents. It is fairly well established that review cannot be equated to an appeal and, even if a different view is possible on merits, review is not the forum. The petitioner is not able to demonstrate that either a binding precedent was omitted from consideration or that any error, apparent on the face of the record, has crept into the judgment. At any rate, the review petitioner cannot seek review of a judgment which is rendered in a batch of writ petitions.
The review application is, accordingly,
dismissed.
Interlocutory application, if any, stands disposed of.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ)
(Shivaji Pandey, J)
K.C.jha/N.A.F.R. U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review is maintainable against a judgment rendered in a batch of writ petitions in the absence of a binding precedent omission or error apparent on the face of the record.
Chandradeo Bhagat
Doman Prasad Singh
Mandeep Ram
Sabir Ahmed
The State of Bihar
The Director, Primary Education
Chief Justice
Shivaji Pandey
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
