PRADEEP THAKUR vs STATE OF HP AND OTHERS

2026:HHC:49258
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
High Court of H.P.
Review Petition No.110 of 2026 in
CWP No.5590 of 2023
Decided on: 06.11.2026
Pradeep Thakur … Review Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others … Respondents
Coram
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge.
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yogesh Jaswal, Judge.
1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
____________________________________________________
For the Review petitioners: Mr. Mohan Jain, Senior Advocate,
with M/s Gurinder Singh, Divay
Gupta, Arshdeep Singh Sandhawalia,
Sejal and Haibhi Jit Singh Bola,
Advocates.
For the respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General
Mr. Sushant Kaprate, Additional
Advocate General.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)
By way of this review petition, the petitioner is seeking
the review of judgment dated 29.09.2026, passed by this Court in
CWPs No.5590 of 2023, titled Pradeep Thakur Versus State of
Himachal Pradesh and others and other connected matters, in terms
whereof, all the writ petitions assailing the enhancement of the
minimum guaranteed quota by the respondent-Department vide
communication dated 27.03.2023 were dismissed on the ground of
acquiescence and estoppel.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner argued
that as the impugned act of the Department, which was under
1
Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?


::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

2
2026:HHC:49258
challenge in the said writ petitions was contrary to the law declared
High Court of H.P.
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, meaning thereby that the
same was arbitrary and not sustainable in law, therefore, as this
aspect of the matter was ignored by this Court, the same calls for
the review of the judgment. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
were binding on all the Courts and as the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in this regard stood ignored by this Court, therefore
also, the judgment needs to be reviewed. Learned Senior Counsel
referred to the following judgments in the course of his arguments:-
“ 1. Punjab National Bank Versus Kalyani Transco, (2025) Law
Finder (SC) 1626.
2. Kerala Samsthana Chethu Thozhilali Union Versus
State of Kerala & Ors. 2006 (4) SCC 327.
3. Sanjeev Bhandari Versus State of Punjab & others, CWP
No.3628 of 2004, judgment decided by the Hon’ble High Court of
Punjab & Haryana on 31.03.2004,
4. Judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Oberoi Clarks
Versus Excise Taxation Officer (Delhi), 1970 Law Finder (Delhi)
163
.”
No other point was urged.
3. It is settled law that review of a judgment can be sought
if there is an error apparent on the face of the record. For that, of
course, it has to be demonstrated that there is an error apparent in
the judgment in reference to the pleadings in the petition.
4. During the course of his submissions, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner did not refer to the pleadings in the writ
petition of the petitioner at all vis-à-vis the judgment, review of
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

3
2026:HHC:49258
which has been sought, to demonstrate that there indeed was an
High Court of H.P.
error apparent on the face of record in the judgment.
5. Relevant portion of the judgment, review of which is
being sought, is quoted herein below:-
“ ...39. This Court is of the considered view that as the
petitioners acquiesced to the enhancement of the
Minimum Guaranteed Quota by the Department by not
protesting to the enhancement thereafter in terms of
Annexure P-4 dated 27th March, 2023, they are estopped
from filing and maintaining these writ petitions .
40. The vends in issue are allotted to a successful party
for a period of one year from the month of April of the
st
year concerned up to the 31 March of the forthcoming
year. Thus, the life of the acceptance of the bid of the
successful bidder is twelve months.
41. In the present case, the petitions have been filed by
the petitioners in the month of July, 2023 and thereafter
against the enhancement of the Minimum Guaranteed
Quota, which was done by the Department in the month
of March 2023. Thus, there is a delay of three and a half
months, at least, in assailing this act of the State, which
period, according to us, in the peculiar facts of this case,
is fatal.
42. Though, at the first blush, the filing of a writ petitions
against a notification issued by the Government just after
three months of its issuance does seem to be a challenge
with due diligence, but herein, as the life of the vend
allotted to the petitioners is twelve months, this means
that the petitions were filed before this Court, assailing
the enhancement of the Minimum Guaranteed Quota by
the State after one-third of the period of the licenses was
over.
43. In other words, if we construe that the vend was
allotted to the petitioners for a period of 100 years, then
the petitioners approached this Court assailing the
enhancement in the Minimum guaranteed quota
undertaken by the Government after about 30 years as
from the date of the enhancement under challenge and
also from the date when the bids of the petitioners were
accepted.
44.Therefore, in a case where the life period of the tender
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

4
2026:HHC:49258
itself is twelve months, approaching a Court of law after
one-third of the currency of the license is over, obviously
amounts to delay.
45. No plausible explanation was given by the petitioners
as to why there was no challenge to the increase in the
Minimum Guaranteed Quota at the time when the same
was done by the Government.
46. The contention of the learned counsel, generally was,
that at the relevant time, taking into consideration the
business as it was, the petitioners were under the bona
fide belief that they would be in a position to lift the
Minimum Guaranteed Quota. They submitted that as
later on, on account of natural calamities etc., they were
not able to lift the Minimum Guaranteed Quota, it was in
these circumstances that they approached the Court of
Law seeking the setting aside of the enhancement of the
quota.
47.This Court is of the considered view that not
challenging the enhancement of the Minimum
Guaranteed Quota immediately after the enhancement
was done by the Department, which enhancement was
before the bids of the petitioners were accepted, has to be
construed that the petitioners were not indeed aggrieved
by the said enhancement in the Minimum Guaranteed
Quota, otherwise, at least some amongst them should
and would have approached the Court at the relevant
time. They approached the Court only after they were
unable to lift the minimum guaranteed quota.
This, according to us, is no reason to entertain belated
petitions, wherein the petitioners are otherwise barred
from assailing the notification on account of their own act
of acquiescence and estoppel.
48. Therefore, in light of above discussions, as according
to us, these petitions are not maintainable, as the
petitioners are estopped by their act of acquiescence and
are hence estopped from filing these petitions, the same
are dismissed. Same is the fate of other petitions also, in
which, the petitioners have assailed the notice and
subsequent orders passed by the Authorities, as all of
them owe their foundation to Notification dated
27.03.2023 (Annexure P-4), with which, the Court has
not interfered in these petitions. Interim orders, if any,
stand vacated. Pending Miscellaneous applications, if
any, also stand disposed of .”
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

5
2026:HHC:49258
6. Having heard learned Senior Counsel for the review
High Court of H.P.
petitioner and having gone through the grounds of review petition as
also the judgments relied upon by learned Senior Counsel and also
the judgment, review of which is sought by the petitioner, we are of
the considered view that there is no merit in the present review
petition.
7. While deciding the writ petition, this Court took into
consideration the conduct of the parties and as this Court was of the
considered view that the parties had acquiesced to the
communication dated 27.03.2023, by not assailing the same when it
was issued and thereafter, by acting upon it, the writs were not
maintainable on account of the principle of acquiescence and
estoppel.
8. In this backdrop, this Court did not go into the legality
of the communication, because as per this Court, the writs were not
maintainable. During the course of his submissions, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner could not point out from the pleadings
that the findings returned by this Court while dismissing the writ
petitions on the ground of acquiescence and estoppel were contrary
to the pleadings and thus, there was any error apparent on the face
of the record.
9. The thrust of the arguments of the learned Senior
Counsel was that as communication dated 27.03.2023, issued by
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

6
2026:HHC:49258
the Department was bad in law, therefore, the judgment calls for
High Court of H.P.
review.
10. We reiterate that in light of the fact that this Court had
not gone into the legality of the communication of the State and had
rejected the petitions on the ground of acquiescence and estoppel,
the judgments being relied upon on behalf of the petitioners do not
convince us that the judgment under challenge suffers from any
error apparent on the face of the record and it seeks a recall on that
account.
11. In fact, the crux of the arguments of the learned Senior
Counsel was that the impugned communication of the Department
was against the settled principles of law declared by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India. We reiterate that neither did we go into the
legality of the communication, nor have made any observation
regarding the correctness of the communication in the judgment. We
dismissed the petitions on account of the acquiescence and estoppel,
based on the conduct of the petitioners.
12. As far as said findings returned by us are concerned, it
could not be pointed out during the course of arguments that there
was any error apparent in the judgment delivered by us on said
count.
13. We reiterate that during the course of his submissions
learned Senior Counsel for the review petitioner did not refer to the
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

7
2026:HHC:49258
pleadings at all so as to point out as to what was the error apparent
High Court of H.P.
on the face of the judgment in relation to the pleadings contained in
the writ petition. Learned Senior Counsel only referred to the
judgments mentioned by us hereinabove to substantiate his
contention. In fact, none of these judgments were otherwise cited
before us when the writ petitions were heard.
14. Be that as it may, Hon’ble Coordinate Bench of this
Court in Review Petition No.11 of 2019, titled UCO Bank and others
Versus Chaman Singh, along with connected matter, decided on
05.08.2019, has held the following with regard to the parameters
with regard to maintainability/non-maintainability of a review
petition:-
“ ...7. Division Bench of this Court in Chet Ram &
another:
Gram Panchayat Thunag vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
and others, Civil Review No. 7 of 2018 (in CWP No. 2135
of 2016), decided on 17.7.2018, wherein it was held as
under:-6
“20. The principles, on which “any person” “aggrieved
from a decree or order”, can seek review thereof, is now
well settled. It has to be on the basis of statutory right
under Order 47 Rule 1 and that being discovery of a
new and important matter or evidence, which after
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge
or could be produced at the time of passing of the order,
on account of (a) some mistake or error apparent on the
face of record; or (b) for any other sufficient reason.
21. These principles can be culled out as under:
(A) Source
(i) The Court of review has only limited jurisdiction
circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the
language used in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. {Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos & another
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

8
2026:HHC:49258
v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & others, AIR
1954 SC 526 (Para-32) (Three-Judge Bench}.
(ii) Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal.
{Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
(Smt.), (1995) 1 SCC 170 (Para-8) (Two-Judge Bench)}.
(iii) Review is a creation of statute. { Patel Narshi
Thakershi & others v. Shri Pradyumansinghji
Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 (Three-Judge Bench);
and 7 6 SCC 224 (Para-52) (Two-Judge Bench) (Para-
52)}.
(B) Grounds
(iv) Review is permissible only when circumstances of
“substantial and compelling character” make it
necessary to do so. {Sajjan Singh & others v. State of
Rajasthan & others, AIR 1965 SC 845 (Para-21) (Five-
Judge Bench); Lily Thomas (supra); {M/s Northern India
Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt.Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2
SCC 167 (Para-8)
(Three-Judge Bench)}.
(v) Review is permissible only where there is glaring
omission and patent mistake and like grave error has
crept in by judicial fallibility. {Northern India Caterers
(supra) (Para-8)}.
(vi) Error apparent on the face of record has to be
decided on the facts of each case, for an erroneous
decision, by itself, does not warrant review. {Akhilesh
Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi & others, (2013) 2 SCC
1 (Para-1) (Two-Judge Bench); and Dr. Subramanian
Swamy v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2014) 5 SCC
75 (Para-52) (Two-Judge Bench)}.
(vii) Error apparent is not which has to be fished out
and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. The
power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere
possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground
for review. {(Lily Thomas (supra)
(C) Error/Mistake
(viii) In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque &
others, AIR 1955 SC 233 (Seven-Judge Bench), the
Court expounded as to what can be an “error of law”,
“apparent on the face of record”, in the following terms
(Para-23):
“that no error could be said to be apparent on the face
of the record if it was not self-evident, and if it required
an examination or argument to establish it. This test
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

9
2026:HHC:49258
might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the
majority of cases. But there must be cases in which
even this test might break down, because judicial
opinions also differ, and an error that might be
considered by one Judge as self -evident might not be so
considered by another. The fact is that what is an error
apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined
precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of
indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must
be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each
case.” (Emphasis supplied)
(ix) “Mistake apparent form the record” is different from
“an error apparent on the face of record”. {(ITO v. Ashok
Textiles Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 699) (Three-Judge Bench)}.
(x) The ‘mistake apparent on the face of record’ must be
obvious and patent. It must not be such, which can be
established by long-drawn process of reasoning. {T.S.
Balaram v. Volkart Bros, (1971) 2 SCC 526 (Para-5)
(Two-Judge Bench)}. Such mistake should be “quite
obvious” {Commissioner of Central Excise, Balapur,
Mumbai v. RDC Concrete (India) Private Limited, (2011)
12 SCC 166 (Para-21) (Two-Judge Bench)}.
(xi) There is a difference between a mere erroneous
decision and a decision which could be characterized as
vitiated by ‘error apparent’. {Sasi (Dead) through Legal
Representatives v. Aravindakshan Nair & others, (2017)
4 SCC 692 (Two-Judge Bench)}.
(D) Sufficient Reason
(xii) “Any other sufficient reason” must mean a reason
sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those
specified in the Rule. {Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos
(supra) (Para-32)}.
(xiii) Non-existence of a fact, leading to passing of an
order, resulting into miscarriage of justice, is a reason
sufficient enough for reviewing the same. {( Lily Thomas
(supra)}.
(xiv) “Sufficient reason” would include misconception of
fact or law by a Court or even an advocate. {Board of
Control for Cricket in India & another v.Netaji Cricket
Club & others, (2005) 4 SCC 741 (Para-90) (Two-Judge
Bench)}.
(E) Power
(xv)While rectifying a mistake, an erroneous view of law
or a debatable point cannot be decided.So also,incorrect
application of law can also not be corrected.
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

10
2026:HHC:49258
{ ITO v. Ashok Textiles Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 699) (Three-
Judge Bench}.
(xvi) Discovery of new material to be considered with
great caution and order or review should not be granted
very lightly. {Dr. Somayajulu, Secretary v. Attili Appala
Swamy and others, (Para-20) (Three-Judge Bench)}. In a
review petition, Court is not to reappreciate the
evidence and reach at a different conclusion, even if it is
so possible. { Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics &
Hydropower Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 651 (Para-10) (Two-
Judge Bench)}.
(xvii) Review is not rehearing of original matter. {Jain
Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5
SCC 501 (Para-11) (Single-Judge)(Chamber Judge)}.
22. We notice that the aforesaid principles also stand
crystallized by the Apex court in Kamlesh Verma v.
Mayawati & others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, as under:
“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1 When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be
produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words any other sufficient reason has been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, 1922 AIR(PC) 112
and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &
Ors., 1955 1 SCR 520, to mean a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those specified in the
rule. The same principles have been reiterated in Union
of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.,
(2013) 8 SCC 337.
20.2 When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the
original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material
error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its
soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
High Court of H.P.
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

11
2026:HHC:49258
whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and
corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should
not be an error which has to be fished out and
searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully
within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief
sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been
negatived.”
23. The aforesaid principles stand laid down, in the
backdrop of different legislations.
24. However, we are of the considered view that in
exercise of our power under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, nothing precludes us from
exercising the power of review, which inheres in every
Court of plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of
justice or to correct grave and palpable errors
committed by it (Para-8). {(Shivdeo Singh & others v.
State of Punjab & others, AIR 1963 SC 1909 (Five-
Judge Bench)}.
25. We may not be misunderstood to mean that the
principles culled out (supra), are not required to be
adhered to. Definitely, exercise of power, under Article
226 of the Constitution, must be within the principles
so enunciated {Usha Bhakti v. State of Uttar Pradesh &
others, (2014) 7 SCC 663 (Two-Judge Bench)}, but then,
what is important and significant is as to whether the
judgment, subject matter of review, inter alia, has
resulted into miscarriage of justice or not. ”
High Court of H.P.
15. This Court again reiterates that in the course of the
hearing of this review petition, it could not be pointed out at all on
behalf of the petitioner that there indeed was a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record and simply because the petitioner
is not satisfied with the outcome of the writ petition, the same does
not confer any right upon the petitioner to seek a review of the
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS

12
2026:HHC:49258
judgment because remedy for that lies somewhere else. Review is
High Court of H.P.
meant for correction of an error apparent on the face of record and
for correction of mistake, but not to substitute a view.
16. Therefore, in light of the above observations, the present
review petition is dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if
any also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge
(Yogesh Jaswal)
Judge

November 06, 2026
(Rishi)
::: Downloaded on - 06/11/2026 20:31:53 :::CIS