1 2025:CGHC:13048 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No.58 of 2025 1 - Dhan Singh Patel S/o Late Shri Ugrasen Patel Aged About 67 Years R/o Present Address- Ashok Nagar, In Front Of Harsh Heavens, Chantidih, Bilaspur District Bilaspur C.G. Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Department Of Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Commissioner Department Of Schedule Caste And Schedule Tribe, Mantralaya, Indrawati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Smt. Sharada Verma Posted As Additional Director, Office Of Tribal Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - D.D. Kunjam Posted As Additional Director, Office Of Tribal Development, Indrawati Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui and Mr. Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Order on Board Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 19/03/2025 1. The present review petition has been preferred by the petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated 22.11.2023 in WPS No.3883/2013. 2. Vide order dated 22.11.2023 passed in WPS No.3883/2013, the petitioner’s writ petition was allowed by this Court, against which the State filed WA No.357/2024 before the Division Bench of this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 20.06.2024, but no cross appeal was filed by the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner filed WA No.654/2024 challenging the order passed by this Court in WPS No.3883/2013, but the same was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 14.10.2024 without any further liberty, thereafter the present review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this Court dated 22.11.2023 in WPS No.3883/2013. 3. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face 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 impermissible in law as has been held in catena of judgments by the Hon'ble Apex Court, such as Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, reported in (1987) 1 SCC 61, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt), reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, 3 reported in (1996) 10 SCC 174, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, reported in (2013) 2 SCC 1 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692). 4. In the case in hand, the petitioner’s writ appeal has already been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court, as such the present review petition is not maintainable. Even otherwise, the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited, as has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments. 5. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge Nirala