GOURELLA SAHAKARI VIPNAN (MARKETING) SANSTHA SAMITI, Maryadit (Limited) vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
- Court
- Chhattisgarh High Court
1
CGHC010357992026 2026:CGHC:44962
NAFR
VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by VISHAKHA
BEOHAR
REVP No. 331 of 2026
1 - Gourella Sahakari Vipnan (Marketing) Sanstha Samiti, Maryadit
(Limited) Pendra Road, District Gourella - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.)
Through - Its Manager / Secretary Dhara Singh Rathore S/o Shri
Mathura Prasad Rathore, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Ward No. 15,
Samta Nagar, Nagar Panchayat Gourella, District Gourella - Pendra -
Marwahi (C.G.) ... Applicant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Department Of
Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District - Raipur (C.G.)
2 - The Director Of Food Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Block
2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District -
Raipur (C.G.)
3 - The Collector (Food) Collectorate Office District - Gourella - Pendra -
Marwahi (C.G.)
4 - The Commissioner Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection
Department, Directorate Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection
Block-2, 3rd Floor, Indrawati Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Raipur,
District - Raipur (C.G.)
5 - Food Controller District - Gourella - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.)
6 - The Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Pendra Road, District -
Gourella - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.)
7 - Food Officer District - Gourella - Pendra - Marwahi (C.G.)
... Respondents
2
(Cause-title taken from the Case Information System)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Applicant :- Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate
For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Order On Board
26.10.2026
1. The present review petition has been filed under Rule 90 of the
High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, read with Section 152
and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
seeking review of the order dated 14.05.2026 passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No. 2383/2023, whereby the writ petition filed by
the applicant was dismissed.
2. The applicant is a cooperative society registered under the
Chhattisgarh Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, and has been
operating fair price shops in the district of Gourella-Pendra-
Marwahi. The applicant had challenged the advertisements dated
12.05.2023, 21.07.2022 and 17.02.2023 issued by the concerned
authorities for allotment of certain fair price shops to other
societies/committees.
3. While dismissing the writ petition by order dated 14.05.2026, this
Court, inter alia, observed that the material on record indicated
that the applicant had been informed about the excess number of
fair price shops being operated by it and had been afforded an
opportunity to exercise its option to retain shops within the
permissible limit. This Court also took note of the alternative
3
statutory remedy of appeal provided under Clause 18 of the
Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016,
and held that the applicant had approached this Court without
availing the said remedy.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there was no
document on record to establish that the applicant had been
informed about the alleged excess number of fair price shops or
had been granted an opportunity to exercise its option to retain
shops within the permissible limit. It is further submitted that the
applicant had challenged the advertisements inviting applications
for allotment of fair price shops already being operated by it and
that Clause 18 of the Control Order, 2016, which provides for an
appeal against specified orders of the designated officer, was not
applicable to the facts of the case. On these grounds, the
applicant seeks review of the order dated 14.05.2026.
5. It is further pointed out that the applicant had preferred Writ
Appeal No. 714/2026 against the aforesaid order, which was
dismissed by the Division Bench on 13.08.2026, with liberty to the
applicant to approach the learned Single Judge for redressal of its
grievance in appropriate proceedings.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the
review petition, the documents placed on record and the grounds
urged in support thereof.
4
7. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. Review
jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because a party is of the
view that the findings recorded by the Court are erroneous or that
another view is possible. An error apparent on the face of the
record must be one which is self-evident and does not require a
process of elaborate reasoning, re-appreciation of evidence or re-
argument on the merits of the matter. The power of review cannot
be converted into an appellate jurisdiction for correcting every
alleged error or for substituting one possible view by another.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, including
Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, (1987) 1 SCC 61; Meera
Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995) 1
SCC 170; Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others,
(1996) 10 SCC 174; Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and
others, AIR 2000 SC 1650; Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath
Chaturvedi and others, (2013) 2 SCC 1; and Sasi (D) through
LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, (2017) 4 SCC 692 , has
reiterated the settled parameters governing exercise of review
jurisdiction and has held that review cannot be sought for re-
hearing or re-appreciation of the matter as an appellate court.
9. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, this Court finds that none of
the grounds raised by the petitioner discloses any error apparent
on the face of the record in the order dated 14.05.2026. The
dismissal of Writ Appeal No. 714/2026 by the Division Bench, with
liberty to the applicant to approach the learned Single Judge in
5
appropriate proceedings, does not, by itself, establish any ground
for review of the order dated 14.05.2026. The said liberty merely
enables the applicant to pursue such remedy as may be
permissible in law. It does not dispense with the statutory
requirements governing review jurisdiction or entitle the applicant
to a reconsideration of the judgment on grounds that were, or
could have been, urged in the original proceedings.
10. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
applicant has failed to make out any ground for review of the order
dated 14.05.2026 within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. No error apparent on the face
of the record, discovery of any new and important matter or
evidence, or other sufficient reason warranting exercise of the
review jurisdiction has been established. Consequently, no ground
is made out for reviewing or recalling the order under challenge.
The review petition, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby
dismissed.
11. No order as to costs.
sd/-
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Vishakha