- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's writ petition which was filed as a Public Interest Litigation being W.P. (PIL) No. 3704 of 2008 has been dismissed on the ground that in another writ petition being W.P. (PIL) No. 2626 of 2005, order has been passed which will apply to the entire State of Jharkhand and the grievance raised by the petitioner was with respect to one of the ponds, namely Bucha Talab, which also stands covered under the direction issued by this Court in W.P. (PIL) No. 2626 of 2005. Therefore, petitioner's writ petition was not entertained.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed this review petition and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Nagraj and others v. State of Karnataka and another ( : 1993 Suppl (4) SCC 595) and particularly in para 19 to show us the power of reviewing Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. K. Balakrishnan (2) and others v. Union of India and others ( : (2009) 5 SCC 511 : (AIR 2009 SC (Supp) 1916)) to show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the problem of shortage of water in the country. Be that as it may, so far this matter is concerned, the Division Bench of this Court has already issued general nature of direction in the earlier W.P. (PIL) No. 2626 of 2005, covering the problem of Talab in question. We do not find any reason to entertain this review petition. Hence the review petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is free to move appropriate application in disposed of W.P. (PIL) No. 2626 of 2005, if the action is not taken by the State for Bucha Talab at Lohardaga. ;