- (1.) THIS application is for a review of the judgment of this Court dated 1.10.2002 allowing the Letter Patent Appeal, filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 16.7.2002 rendered in WP (C) No. 3072 of 2002.
(2.) THE main ground for review sought to be put forward is that the Member, Board of Revenue is having wide powers under Section 6 of Bihar and Orissa and Revenue Act, 1913 to review his own orders and this provision was not referred to or dealt with by this Court in the judgment dated 1.10.2002. Of course, it does not appear that the said section was brought to the notice of the Court by counsel appearing in the case, when the case was argued. This Court had proceeded in the judgment as if there was no power of review in the Board of Revenue under the Bihar Excise Act, 1915. But since it is seen that under Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1913 there is a power of review, it can be said that there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment. Of course, the error as pointed out, occurred in the judgment since the counsel for the State failed to bring that provision to the notice of the Court earlier. Secondly, the decision of this Court proceeds on the basis that the power of review was being exercised a second time. If the review filed by the State before the Board of Revenue is treated as one to review, the earlier order, dismissing four Revisions, Board Case Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of 2001, it cannot be said that the power was being exercised for a second time. If treated as an attempt to get the order of Board or Revenue dated 10.1.2002 reviewed, it cannot be said to be a second review. Of course, even then the question will arise as to whether an order for review on a review petition will be maintainable or not. We think that in the circumstances existing, the questions require to be examined afresh. Since, we are satisfied that there is an error apparent on the fact of record in view of the failure to consider Section 6 of the Bihar and Orissa Board of Revenue Act, 1913 and its scope, while referring the decision, we are satisfied that the judgment requires to be reviewed. We, therefore, review the judgment date 1.10.2002 in LPA No. 439 of 2002 and reopen the appeal. The Letters Patent Appeal will be posted for hearing in due course. Meanwhile, we think it necessary to direct the Board of Revenue to produce the entire file relating to these four cases as also the files of Deputy Commissioner, Bokaro and the Appellate Authority for scrutiny. In other words, the entire records relating to these proceedings of all the authorities must be made available for our perusal.
(3.) THE Registry will communicate this direction to the Board of Revenue forthwith. Post this Appeal on 17.10.2003 along with Cont. (Civil) No. 192 of 2003 at 2.15 p.m.;