1 2025:CGHC:54826 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 369 of 2025 Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) S/o (Late) Shri Ashok Kale Aged About 46 Years R/o Kale Wade Tilak Nagar, Main Road Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur (C.G.) 495001 Mob-9425530260 --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya Naya Raipur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Law And Legislation Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Commercial Tax (Excise), Govt Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 4 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Agriculture Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 5 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secretary, Forest And Climate Change Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay Naya Raipur (C.G.) 6 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Finance Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 7 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Agriculture Dept. Govt. Of Chhattisgarh. Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.) 8 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Bio Diversity Board Govt. Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, Naya Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondents 2 (Cause title is taken from the CIS) Petitioner in person : Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale For State-Respondent : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/11/2025 Heard. 1. By way of the instant review petition, the petitioner has sought review of the order dated 12.09.2025 passed in WPC No.4812 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Petitioner in person would submit that the petitioner had filed writ petition bearing number WPC 4812/2025 for seeking direction to Respondent's, for deciding representation dated 22.02.2024 submitted by him in the interest & prosperity of State of Chhattisgarh. He further submits that being aggrieved by no proper action taken by the Respondents against his representation dated 22.02.2024 is deems to be involved in the unfair Practice. Petitioner’s petition had comes up before this Court on 12.09.2025 and dismissed the same. Therefore, it is prayed that this Court may kindly be pleased to review the order dated 12.09.2025 and to restore WPC No.4812/2025 and provide the relief mentioned their in. 3 3. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by the petitioner and contended that the order passed by this Court in WPC No.4812/2025 is just and proper needs no interference. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the parties. In exercise of review jurisdiction this Court sans power unless the mistake is apparent on the face of record. There is no other ground pointed out by the review petitioner showing any manifest error on the record. It is well settled principle 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. 6. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks direction to this Court to decide the representation dated 22.02.2024 on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 7. It is trite law that under the garb of review petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to decide the representation, 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, 4 AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, 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. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the petition sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant