Rajendra Prasad Tiwari vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil Supplies Lko And 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION DEFECTIVE No. - 41 of 2026
Rajendra Prasad Tiwari
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food And Civil
Supplies Lko And 3 Others
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Saima Khan, Zainul Abbas
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :

[A.F.R.]
Court No. - 14
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel for the review applicant and Sri
Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri
Alok Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing
the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3.
By means of instant application, the applicant is seeking review of a
2.
judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by this Court dismissing Writ-
C No. 41 of 2026, which was filed by the review applicant/petitioner
challenging the validity of an order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar canceling the fair price shop license
of the petitioner, which order had been affirmed by means of an order dated
08.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ayodhya Division,
Ayodhya in appeal filed by the petitioner under Para 13(3) of U.P. Essential
Commodities(Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016.
3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary
objection that the writ petition had been filed through Sri Ajay Kumar
Pandey, Advocate and the aforesaid counsel had advances submissions in
support of the writ petition. The review application has been filed by another
counsel Ms. Saima Khan. He has submitted that in view of the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Poornachandran &
: (1996) 6 SCC 755 and
Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr : (
1997) 9 SCC 736, a review petition cannot be filed through a counsel who

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
2
was not a counsel in the writ petition. .
The learned counsel for the review applicant has also placed reliance on
4.
the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board and Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another : (1997) 9 SCC
736.
5. In M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N. :, (1996) 6 SCC 755, a Review
Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, had been dismissed by h
olding as under: -
" The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was
the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided
on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir
Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal
was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is
unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review
petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He
did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the
interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he
has not obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on-
Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed
him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the 'No Objection
Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record.
Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court.
The failure to obtain the 'No Objection Certificate' from the
erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition.
Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt
to reargue the matter on merits."
(Emphasis added)
6. Thereafter another application for clarification of the order, an application
for review whereof had already been rejected vide judgment in the case of
M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N. (supra) was filed through another
Advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the application by a
judgment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. N. Raju
Reddiar & Anr : (1997) 9 SCC 736 by observing that: -
" 1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not
worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr
Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the
petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed.
After the matter was disposed of, Mr V. Balachandran, Advocate
had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this
Court on 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has
now been engaged to file the present application styled as
"application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order
is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave
petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or
fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by
the Advocate-on-Record who neither appeared nor was party in

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
3
the main case. It is salutary to note that the court spends valuable
time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be,
an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately,
it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review
petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without
obtaining consent of the Advocate-on-Record at earlier stage.
This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the
responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. "
(Emphasis added)
7. The learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that she has
obtained a no objection certificate from the Counsel who had filed and
argued the Writ Petition and, therefore, she has the right to file the review
application. She has further submitted that even in T.N. Electricity Board v.
N. Raju Reddiar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out an
exception against the prohibition against filing of review petitions for the "
rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record". She has
rare cases as it suffers from a
submitted that the present case is one of those
patent error of fact. The petitioner was held prima facie guilty in a
preliminary inquiry, thereafter, an opportunity to show cause was given to
him and without any evidence having been led to prove the charges against
the petitioner, he has been held guilty. She has submitted that as the order
impugned in the writ petition suffers from perversity which renders it
unsustainable in law, the present case falls in the category of those rare
cases, in which a review of the order is permitted.
8. The aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is based
on a misreading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. What the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down is, that a review application cannot be
filed in a routine manner and it can only be filed in rare cases, where an error
of law or fact is apparent on the face of the record. The second principle laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that review application can be filed
by the Counsel who had advanced submissions in the original proceedings,
as any other Counsel will not be in a position to point out what submissions
had been advanced before the Court at the time of passing of the order
sought to be reviewed. A review petition is not a rehearing or an appeal
against the original order and, therefore, new grounds cannot be taken in a
review petition. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit
such practice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held that where the order
suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, a review application
can be filed through a new Counsel also. A review application can only be
filed where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and even
where there is an error which is apparent on the face of record, the review
application should be filed by the Counsel who had advanced submissions in

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
4
the original proceedings. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel
for the review applicant is misconceived and the same is rejected.
9. The learned counsel for the review applicant next submitted that the
provision for filing applications for review before this High Court is
contained in Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which
reads as follows: -
" 12. Application for review. :- An application for the review of a
Judgment shall be presented to the Registrar General, who shall
endorse thereon the date when it is presented and lay the same as
early as possible before the Judge or Judges by whom such
judgment was delivered along with an office report as to limitation
and sufficiency of courtfees. If such Judge or Judges or any one or
more of such Judges be no longer attached to the court, the
application shall laid before the Chief Justice who shall having
regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XL VII of the Code,
nominate a Bench for the hearing of such applications :
Provided that an application for the review of a judgment of one
Judge who is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of
six months next after the presentation of the application from
considering the decree or order to which the application refers,
shall be heard or disposed of by a single Judge, and that an
application for the review of a judgment of two or more Judges,
any one or more of whom is or are precluded by absence or other
cause for a period of six months next after the presentation of the
application from considering the decree or order to which the
application refers, shall be heard or disposed of by a Bench
consisting of the same or a greater number of Judges.
Explanation:- For the purposes of this rule the expression 'no
longer attached to the Court' shall be deemed to include absence
from the permanent place of sitting on account of the directions
given under rule 17 of this Chapter, illness or any other cause.."
10. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid
Rule permits hearing of a review application by a Judge other then the Judge
who had decided the original proceedings, in case of non-availability of the
Judge who had decided the original proceedings. As per the learned counsel
for the petitioner the same analogy should be applied to the counsel also and
if the earlier counsel is not available for filing review application or
advancing submissions, another counsel should be permitted to file a review
application and advance submissions in support thereof.
11. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for
the review applicant as firstly, in case the judge who had decided the earlier
original proceedings is not attached to the Court, the review applicant can
not be left remedy-less and in that case the Rule rightly provides that the
review application shall be heard and disposed of by another Bench. It is not

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
5
the case that the counsel who had filed the writ petition and had advanced
submissions in support thereof, is not practicing before this Court any more
and it is not the case that the counsel is not available for filing the review
petition and advancing submissions in support thereof. The only thing is that
the applicant/petitioner has chosen to avail the services of another counsel.
Therefore the analogy of Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court
Rules, as pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not apply
to the present case.
12. Therefore, I find force in the submission of Sri Rahul Shukla, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel, that the review application filed through
another Counsel cannot be entertained.
13. The order sought to be reviewed is a detailed order, wherein this Court
has noted that the order dated 21.12.2019 shows that during inquiry,
statements of 40 persons have been recorded who pointed out the illegalities
committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities. The
Village Pradhan gave written statement stating that the essential
commodities for the month of October 2018 had not been distributed till
27.10.2018. After a complaint was made by the card holders, the petitioner
made inadequate distribution on 28/29.10.2018. He has charged excessive
amount from the card holders. After recording of statements of card holders,
the petitioner's shop was inspected. The stock register was not available in
the shop. The petitioner's brother who was present at the shop at the time of
inspection was directed to produce the stock register the following day, but
the petitioner did not do so. It was also found during inspection that the sign
board, stock board, rate board, notice board and toll free number of the
department was not displayed at the shop. The petitioner was not using
electronic weighing scale or standard weights and weighing scale certified
by the legal meteorology department. The petitioner's license was suspended
by means of order dated 06.11.2018. The petitioner submitted his
explanation on 11.10.2018 along with a copy of the stock register. He stated
that he could not distribute the essential commodities because of some
criminal actions committed on 30.09.2018 in which he and his family
members had suffered injuries and were under going treatment and he had
remained admitted to hospital since 30.09.2018 to 09.10.2018. He had
started distribution through an assistant since 12.10.2018. It is recorded in
the impugned order that the petitioner's explanation and the evidence
adduced by him, including the distribution register, was examined by the
Regional Food Officer who found that the distribution register had not been
properly filled. Some pages thereof contained signature of large number of
persons than the persons whose names were mentioned and some other

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
6
pages mentioned lesser number of signatures than the names of persons
mentioned. The distribution register had not been verified by the competent
officer from which it appeared that the petitioner had fabricated the register.
14. This Court has also taken into consideration that Para 7 (8) of U.P.
Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016
merely provides that an inquiry regarding irregularities in distribution by a
fair price shop owner shall be conducted by the designation officer or by the
District Magistrate. After inquiry, if the license of fair price shop owner is
suspended along with a show cause notice by the competent authority, then
the reply/ explanation of show cause notice by fair price shop owners will be
examined by an officer at least one rank above the inquiry officer. If the
preliminary inquiry had been conducted by a district level officer, then the
explanation by fair price shop owners shall be examined by another district
level officer. It does not provide for recording of statements of witnesses and
giving opportunity of their cross-examination by the shop holder.
15. This Court has already examined the plea raised on behalf of the
petitioner that the impugned order suffers from perversity and after a
detailed discussion, has concluded in para 8 of the judgment dated
07.01.2026 that " the S.D.M. arrived at a finding of guilt of the petitioner
after taking into consideration the entire record and the order cannot be
said to be perverse. The findings of S.D.M. has been affirmed by the Deputy
Commissioner, Food during appeal ."
Now by seeking a review on the ground that the order impugned in the
16.
Writ Petition suffers from perversity, the review applicant is seeking a
rehearing of the matter, which is not permissible in law.
17. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. : AIR 1964 SC
1372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: -
"7…. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for
patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable
occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any
great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without
any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here
is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there
could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear
case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made
out…. "
18. The aforesaid principle has consistently been followed till date, and it
has recently been followed in State of W.B. v. Jai Hind (P) Ltd. : 2026 SCC

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
7
OnLine SC 157.
19. In Malleeswari v. K. Suguna : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that: -
" It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed
15.
unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the
force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless
it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114
and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the
courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and
is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of
judicial decisions:
The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have
15.1
to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of
CPC.
15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which
may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate court.
15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC,
it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and
corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a
mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised
within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of
power.
15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A
rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an
exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or
pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to
prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable
errors .
16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact
or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is
undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the
first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of
the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages,
detailed reasoning is not warranted.
17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and
appellate power, we restate the power and scope of
review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or
evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the
exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their
knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the
original decree or order was passed.
17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be
invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must
be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
8
error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error
which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning
on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly
be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a
17.3
reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the other two categories.
Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with
18.
another jurisdiction..."
20. Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed
reliance on a decision in Shankar Prasad v. State of U.P. : 2021 SCC
OnLine All 1852, wherein a Division Bench of this Court examined the
following two questions referred to it: -
" (a) What are the parameters of principles of natural justice to be
followed in inquiries conducted by Licensing Authority on
complaints of irregularities in the distribution of Essential
Commodities?
(b) Whether the observation made in Paragraph 35 of the Full
Bench decision in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 UPLBEC
947 regarding holding of "full fledged enquiry" after suspension of
license can be read in such a manner as would require the whole
gamut of steps required in disciplinary proceedings of Government
servants to be followed?"
The Division Bench gave the following answers to the questions: -
(i) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted
against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee
in terms of the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad
principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall
provide a show cause notice to the licensee indicating the
violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with
sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and
after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be
taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking
order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not
entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry ;
(ii) It is held that the words "full fledged enquiry" as used by the
Full Bench of this Court in the decision of Puran Singh (supra) has
to be read in context with paras 4 and 5 of the Government Order
of July 2004 and the scheme therein which merely requires
adherence to the principles of natural justice and does not provide
for a detailed enquiry involving various stages and steps as are
required to be met in disciplinary enquiry against a government
servant."
(Emphasis added)
21. The order sought to be reviewed is in conformity with the aforesaid

CMRAD No. 41 of 2026
9
principles laid down by the Division Bench in Shankar Prasad v. State of
(supra) and it does not suffer from any error, much less an error
U.P.
apparent on the face of the record. The Review Application lacks merit and
the same is dismissed .
April 1, 2026
Darpan Sharma
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
DARPAN SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench