CHHATTISGARH STATE POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LIMITEED (CSPDCL) v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
REVP/218/2025 · 2025-08-12
Shri Bibhu Datta Guru
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32037 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 32037 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1 / 4
2025:CGHC:40711-DB
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 218 of 2025 1 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limiteed (Cspdcl) Through Its Managing Director, Dangania, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 The General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Dangania, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 The Deputy General Manager Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Dangania, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 The Superintending Engineer (Circle) C.S.P.D.C.L., Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh 5 The Executive Engineer C.S.P.D.C.L., Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner(s) versus 1 State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Energy Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 Vijay Kumar Kharra S/o Late Shri Nathuram Kharra Aged About 56 Years Working As Assistant Grade-3, Office Of Executive Engineer, JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.08.14 10:23:05 +0530
2 / 4 Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited, Division Patthalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Varun Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No. 1/ State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, G.A. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil S. Pandey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
Order on Board Per Ramesh Singha, Chief Justice 13/08/2025
1. The review petitioners (appellants in WA) seek review of the
judgment dated 03.09.2024 rendered by this court in WA No. 545 of 2024 which has been dismissed by this Court in terms of order passed in WA No. 517 of 2024. 2. From bare perusal of the order passed in the Writ Appeal, which is sought to be reviewed herein, it is apparent that this Court has dismissed the appeal stating that the review petitioner has already filed application before the Labour court, exhausting the alternate efficacious remedy available under the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 thus requiring no interference by this court. 3. Against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed in WA No. 545 of 2024 the review petitioner/ writ appellant filed an SLP bearing No.
3 / 4 59973 of 2024 before the Supreme Court, which was withdrawn by the review petitioner on 24.02.2025, with liberty to file review petition before this court for the reason that many of the grounds were not raised earlier before this court. 4. On a pointed query made to learned counsel for the petitioner that what is the ground on which he wants to argue the matter before this court, he could not point out the same. Further there is no other ground pointed out by the Review Petitioners showing any manifest error on the record. 5. It is well settled principles of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the review petitioners have not produced any ground for review. 6. It appears that the Review Petitioners by presenting 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. 7. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review petition, the Review Petitioners 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,
4 / 4 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}. 8. Accordingly, the Review Petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) ( RAMESH SINHA ) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Jyoti