(1.) After an interval of so many years of disposal of Cr.WJC No.37/2012 vide order dated 19.07.2012 for which no appeal was preferred, instant petition has been filed to review the order dated 19.07.2012 on the plea that the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Mosmat Swaran v. State of Bihar, 2012 2 PLJR 229 has not been considered which is also based upon (Executive Engineer, Southern Electricity Supply Company of Orissa Limited (Southco) & Anr. V. Sri Sitaram Rice Mill, 2012 2 SCC 108) which also happens to be sheet-anchor of the order impugned.
(2.) At the time of hearing on the point of admission when a query was made with regard to maintainability of the instant petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the power so invoked by this Court while disposing of the Cr.W.J.C. was under article 226 of the Constitution and so, be categorized under different nomenclature is not going to cloud the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution and that being so, review is permissible in terms of Section 114 as well as Order XLVII of the CPC, though not specifically embedded under constitution itself. Accordingly, instant review petition is permissible. To substantiate the same, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon (Shivdeo Singh & Ors v. State of Punjab & Ors, 1963 AIR(SC) 1909), (Collector of Customs, Bombay v. Bhor Industries Ltd., 1988 AIR(SC) 1351.).
(3.) The Court has to function as per assigned roaster entrusted by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, having primacy over the same. Nomenclature of the petition is accordingly identified as well as categorized. So far Patna High Court is concerned, the writ petition is bifurcated in two parts, CWJC as well as CrWJC in terms categorization under Patna High Court Rules, Chapter XXIC(3) which speaks as follows:-