Chattisgarh High Court
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation ... vs M/S Navin Kumar Chopda on 21 June, 2021
1
REVP No. 89 of 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 89 of 2021
1. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (HPCL) Limited
(HPCL), A Government Of India Enterprises, Through Its
Director Having Its Registered Office At Petroleum House ,
17, Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai- 400020.
2. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited(HPCL) Through
Senior Category Manager CPO (MKTG)- 9th Floor,
Marathon Futurex Building A- Wing, Mafatlal Mills
Compounds, NM Joshi Marg , Mumbai- 400013.
---- Petitioners
Versus
1. M/s Navin Kumar Chopda Through Its Proprietor- Navin
Kumar Chopda, Aged About 43 Years, Transport Contractor,
Having Its Office At FCI Road , Tarbahar Fatak, Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
2. M/s Maa Sharda Road Carriers 29/121, Gali No. 06, Phase-
I , Shriram Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. M/s Ishika Transport Kurud- Road- Kohka, PO- Supela,
District- Durg, C.G.- 490023.
4. M/s Uma Shankar Shukla 39, Vardhman Colony, Rajiv
Gandhi Ward, Jagdalpur, Cg- 494009.
5. M/s Indu Transport Indu Udyan Chowk, Jarhabhata Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
6. M/s Balaji Bulk Movers F.C.I Road, Tarbahar, Bilaspur,
Chhattigarh.
7. M/s C.G. Andhra Road Lines Jr. MIG- 46-A, Vaishali Nagar,
Bhilai- District- Durg, Chhattisgarh.
8. M/s Satya Ventures Santi Para, Bus Stand, Bhilai-3, District-
Durg, Chhattisgarh. Durg- 490021.
9. M/s Anand Transport Corporation House No. C- 179, Bajaj
Colony- 2, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur, Cg- 492006.
10. M/s Rajwardhan Singh Shop No. 113, Kuber Plaza, Magar
1
REVP No. 89 of 2021
Para, Road, Bilaspur. Chhattisgarh.
11.M/s Ganesh Dhruv Shop No. 21, Taha Complex Bhartiya
Nagar Chowk, Vyapar Vihar, Road , Bilaspur, Chhattigarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners :- Mr. Ali Asgar, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
Order On Board
By
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag.CJ
21/06/2021
1. This review application has been preferred against our
judgment dated 25.3.2021 in WPC No.3162 of 2018 and
other connected matters on submission that issue No.3
framed in paragraph 13 of the order has not been decided.
2. If the issue has not been decided by this Court, there is no
occasion to file any review application. The review
application is maintainable only when an issue is decided
and the same is based on error apparent on the face of the
record. Even otherwise, the review applicant has already
decided the representation preferred by M/s Navin Kumar
Chopda against which a separate writ petition has already
been preferred by M/s Navin Kumar Chopda.
3. It is well settled principle of law that under the garb of review
petition, the petitioner should not be permitted to argue the
entire case afresh, which would amount to convert the
review petition into an appeal and the same is not
REVP No. 89 of 2021
sustainable in law. (See: Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal
Kumar Chowdhary, AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v.
Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar
Rath v. State of Orissa and others, AIR 2000 SC 85,
Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari and
others, (2005) 2 SCC 332, and Kerla State Electricity Board
v. Hitech Electrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others,
(2005) 6 SCC 651.
4. As a sequel, the review petition, sans substratum is liable to
be and is hereby dismissed.
SD/- SD/-
(Prashant Kumar Mishra) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Acting Chief Justice Judge
Ayushi
