ORDER Heard Mr. Raju Giri for the petitioner, and learned Assistant counsel to Standing Counsel No.1 for the respondents. 2: This application has been filed by the appellant of LPA No. 181 of 2006(Abdul Rahman .Khan vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), for review and/or recall of the order dated 17.12.2009, whereby the appeal was dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that learned counsel for the appellant was not present at the time the appeal was taken up and, therefore, it could not be argued effectively on behalf of the appellant. The contention is stated only to be rejected. The opening words of the order dated 17.12.2009 states "Heard learned counsel for the appellant,..." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant also seeks to place before us certain materials in support of his defence in the departmental proceeding. It was open to the appellant to put up his defence before the learned enquiry officer which he did not do. Paragraph 3 of the order in question states that "...It appears to us that the appellant did not make any attempt to rebut the charge and justify his conduct during the course of enquiry..:" In that view of the matter, we do not deem it fit and proper to entertain the plea in the present review application, traditionally known to be of narrow sweep, and were really available to the appellant before the learned enquiry officer which he failed to avail. The contention is rejected. 4. Soon after the learned counsel for the petitioner concluded his submissions, he was advised to withdraw this application which he failed to do. We consider it to be an absolutely frivolous application, burdening this Court with a most unwanted matter. 5. It is difficult to recall the judgment in question and rehear the matter also in view of growing pendency in courts in India. I am reminded of the conclusion arrived at by Mr.-Bibek Debroy in his book entitled In the Dock: Absurdities of Indian Law', that the pending litigations in this country without any addition thereto, will take 324 years for disposal. These observations were made more than two decades ago, and the situation has further deteriorated. One Judge perhaps of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently has made observations that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. 6. These observations were made more than two decades ago, and the situation has further deteriorated. One Judge perhaps of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in one of his speeches recently has made observations that it will now take 350 years or so to dispose of the pending cases. 6. The following portion of the book by Fali S. Nariman entitled 'India's legal system: Can it be saved", is also relevant in the present context: "More than one hundred years ago, a law member in the Government of India (Hobhouse) recorded in a minute dated 5 September 1872 (on the Bill leading to the Privy Council Appeal Act,1874) the following observations: In considering what limit should be assigned to the power of appealing, our leading maxim is, that it is the interest of the commonwealth to have and end of law suits. No man has a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wishes. The state's duty is discharged when it has provided such a reasonable amount of attention and skill and honesty as will satisfy reasonable men that their causes have been decided, erroneously or otherwise, on the merits, and according to the best a ability of the judge, and so will prevent them from feeling that resentment of sheer injustice which drives people to take the law into their hands and to wage private war. Upon this principle all laws place some limits to litigation. And so have we placed limits to the power of appealing. Pithily put, and elegantly phrased. The portion about no man having a right to unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get his private affairs settled as he wished was quoted by Justice Gajendragadkar (who later became Chief Justice of India) in one of the early reports of the Law Commission of India, but despite what was so wisely said by Mr. Hobhouse and again by Chief Justice Gajendrgadkar, our laws continue to provide (by way of appeals, reviews and revisions) unlimited draughts on the time and money of the public in order to get private affairs ultimately settled. For instance, we have now abolished second appeals, and yet lawyers go on arguing endlessly about the maintainability of intra-court appeals under special laws." 7. For instance, we have now abolished second appeals, and yet lawyers go on arguing endlessly about the maintainability of intra-court appeals under special laws." 7. This application is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-(rupees twenty five thousand), which the State Government shall realize from the pensionery benefits of the petitioner.