Review petitions require original counsel; fair price shop license cancellation inquiries are summary, not departmental, in nature.

The review applicant sought to review a judgment dated 07.01.2026, which had dismissed Writ-C No. 41 of 2026

The underlying writ petition challenged the cancellation of the applicant’s fair price shop license by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar (dated 21.05.2019), and a subsequent appellate order by the Deputy Commissioner, Ayodhya (dated 08.12.2025)

A preliminary objection was raised by the State regarding the maintainability of the review application, as it was filed by a new counsel, Ms. Saima Khan, whereas the original writ petition was argued by Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey

The applicant argued that an error of fact was apparent because the petitioner was held guilty without proper evidence being led

The Court primarily relied on the Supreme Court decisions in M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N. (1996) 6 SCC 755 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736, which established that a review petition should generally be filed by the counsel who argued the original matter to prevent it from becoming a rehearing on merits

The scope of review is strictly limited by Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC and the principle in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372, which mandates that review lies only for patent errors, not as an "appeal in disguise"

The court applied the Division Bench ruling in Shankar Prasad v. State of U.P. 2021 SCC OnLine All 1852, clarifying that inquiries into fair price shop irregularities are summary in nature and do not require the rigors of a full-fledged departmental inquiry

The Court rejected the applicant’s contention that a new counsel could file a review if a "No Objection Certificate" (NOC) was obtained.

It held that the original counsel is best positioned to identify which submissions were previously advanced, and permitting new counsel to re-argue the case would undermine professional discipline and judicial efficiency

The Court further dismissed the analogy between Chapter V Rule 12 of the High Court Rules and the availability of counsel, noting that while a new Judge may hear a review if the original Judge is no longer attached to the Court, a petitioner cannot unilaterally change counsel for a review when the original counsel is still practicing

On the merits, the Court found no error apparent on the face of the record.

The SDM’s original order was based on statements from 40 persons, evidence of overcharging, and the petitioner’s failure to produce stock registers

Since the inquiry was summary in nature as per Shankar Prasad, the lack of cross-examination did not constitute perversity

The Court concluded that the applicant was attempting an impermissible rehearing of the matter

It further held that the original judgment did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record and was in conformity with established legal principles regarding summary inquiries for essential commodities

The review application was dismissed for lack of merit