Cooperative Society’s Challenge to Fair-Price Shop Allotment Ads Fails Again as Chhattisgarh HC Rejects Review

In brief

The question

Whether the alleged absence of record evidence of notice and an opportunity to select shops disclosed an error apparent on the face of the original order warranting review.

The court held

The Court found no error apparent, newly discovered matter or evidence, or other sufficient reason to review the order dated 14 May 2026.

It also directed

It dismissed the review petition and made no order as to costs.

01Facts

The applicant cooperative society sought review 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, of the order dismissing its writ petition challenging advertisements for allotment of fair price shops.

¶ 1

In dismissing the writ petition, the Court had noted that the society had been informed that it operated more shops than permitted and had been given an opportunity to choose which shops to retain; it had also noted the statutory appeal under Clause 18 of the Chhattisgarh Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2016.

¶ 3

The society contended that the record contained no evidence of such notice or opportunity and that Clause 18 did not apply to its challenge to the advertisements.

¶ 4

Its appeal against the original order had been dismissed, with liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings before the Single Judge.

¶ 5

02Issues

i.Whether the alleged absence of record evidence of notice and an opportunity to select shops disclosed an error apparent on the face of the original order warranting review.

¶ 4, 7, 9

ii.Whether the Division Bench’s grant of liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings provided a ground to review the original order.

¶ 5, 9

03Law Applied

Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, review is confined to grounds such as an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or other sufficient reason; it cannot be used as an appeal or to secure a rehearing or reappreciation of evidence.

¶ 7, 10

The Court relied on Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co., Lily Thomas v. Union of India, Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, and Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair for these settled limits on review jurisdiction.

¶ 8

The petition was also presented under Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007, read with Section 152 CPC.

¶ 1

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 152

04Reasoning

The Court held that the applicant’s objections to the findings concerning notice, the opportunity to select shops, and the availability of a statutory appeal did not establish a self-evident error; addressing them would require reconsideration of the original merits, which is beyond review jurisdiction.

¶ 7, 9

The Division Bench’s liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings merely preserved remedies available in law and did not authorize review or displace the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1.

¶ 9