1 2025:CGHC:5724-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP NO.286 of 2024 1. Premshakar Bramhbhatt (In Person) S/o Shri Pardeshiram Brahmbhatta Aged About 31 Years R/o Behind Street Of Parmeshwari Devangan School Ward No. 4, Gaya Nagar Post Office And Police Station Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Health Services, Mahanadi Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S.Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Commissioner, Department Of Health Services, Indravati Bhawan, Post Office Mantralaya, P.S. Rakhi, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Balod P.S. Tahsil And Distt. Balod Chhattisgarh. 4. Shri Deepak Kumar Sahu S/o Late Shri Chova Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Q. No. 225/a Ward No. 12 Durg Road Ganjpara, P.S. And P.O. Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 5. Shri Purushottam Singh Vashishtha S/o Shri Dariyan Singh Vashishtha Aged About 28 Years R/o Near Sagar Hospital Ganjpara P.S. And P.O. Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 2 6. Shri Dinesh Singh S/o Shri Ram Prasad Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Behind To Karmachari Nagar Sikolabasti Durg P.S. And P.O. Durg, District - Durg, Chhattisgarh. 7. Shri Bharat Bhushan Tiwari S/o Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari Aged About 27 Years R/o Hospital Colony Balod P.S. And P.O. Balod, District - Balod, Chhattisgarh. 8. Shri Yugal Kishor Sahu S/o Shri Chenlal Sahu Aged About 26 Years R/o Behind To New Bus Statnd Aamapara Balod, P.S. And P.O. Balod Distt. Balod, Chhattisgarh. 9. Shri Shantanu Vishnava S/o Shri Dev Narayan Vishvana Chova Aged About 24 Years R/o Shikshak Colony Ward No. 11, Dongargaon P.S. And P.O. Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 10. Shri Shiv Dayal S/o Shri Lokesh Das Aged About 24 Years R/o Kanhapuri Ward No. 28 P.O. Kanharpuri P.S. Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Shri Premshankar Bramhbhatt, in person For Respondents/State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. For Respondent nos. 4 to 10 : Shri Vibhour Goverdhan, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Anoop Majumdar, Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 31/01/2025 1. By the present petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 22.10.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal No. 3 686/2024, whereby the appeal was dismissed as being sans substratum. 2. The petitioner, who appears in person, would submit that while passing the order dated 22.10.2024, this Court has not appreciated the facts and grounds raised by him in its true perspective and as such the said order may be reviewed. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the review petition is not maintainable because under the garb of Review Application, the petitioner was seeking to urge the merits of the decision all over again which is impermissible under the review jurisdiction. The order of which review is sought is reasoned and discussed. There is no error apparent on the face of the record to warrant invocation of review jurisdiction. 4. Heard the petitioner appearing in person and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the order under review. 5. The Scope of the review jurisdiction is narrow confined to errors apparent on the face of the record or if a relevant provision of law had been overlooked. In other words, it is only a patent error which is amenable to review and not an error which may have to be discovered by a process of reasoning and what may be called a virtual re-hearing of the matter. In the garb of a Review Petition, we cannot sit in judgment over our own order. In the order dated 22.10.2024, which is sought to be reviewed, we have set out our complete understanding of the order of the learned Single Judge to arrive at our own reasoned conclusion. We are, therefore not 4 satisfied that the Review application is maintainable, if the petitioner is aggrieved, the remedy is different. 6. 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. and others, 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). 7. The ground raised by the review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 8. As an upshot, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib