Chhattisgarh HC Keeps ‘Chakhna Shop’ No-Restart Direction In Place After Owner’s Counsel Says He Won’t Run It

The petitioner sought review of the order dated 17 August 2026 in WPC No. 5035 of 2025.

That order recorded that he had said he had stopped running a “Chakhna Shop” and would not run one in future, and directed him not to operate such a shop or make future encroachments.

The petitioner contended that he had never operated a Chakhna Shop and that only a licensed family restaurant operated from his premises.

The Municipal Corporation opposed review, stating that the petitioner’s affidavit addressed encroachment but did not specifically address discontinuance of the shop.

The review petition sought deletion or substitution of the disputed passage.

The Court applied the principle that review jurisdiction is not a means to reopen factual aspects already considered when disposing of the original proceeding; intervention requires an error apparent on the face of the record or another sufficient ground for review.

The judgment cites no statute or precedent governing review.

The Court considered the dispute in the writ petition to have concerned both alleged encroachment and the operation of a Chakhna Shop.

It held that the original order’s recording of the petitioner’s submission and the consequential directions arose from that controversy.

The petitioner’s contention that he had never operated such a shop would require reconsideration of factual matters and did not establish an apparent error or other ground for review.

The Court also noted that, during the review hearing, counsel—on the petitioner’s instructions—stated that he would not run a Chakhna Shop.

It dismissed the review petition as devoid of merit.