Chattisgarh High Court
M/S Anant Rice Industries vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2022
REVP. 255/2019
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 255 of 2019
Judgment reserved on 02.09.2022
Judgment delivered on 16.09.2022
• M/s Shankar Rice Industries (A Proprietorship Firm), Bandha Bazar
Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Shivam Khandelwal S/o Mr. Arun
Khandelwal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o A- 12 Sun City, Kanchan
Bag, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil & District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.
------Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Sector - 19, Rakhi -1, Naya Raipur , Raipur Chhattisgarh.
PIN 492101.
2. Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through It's Managing Director, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur Tahsil
Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. PIN 492001.
3. District Manager Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing
Federation Limited, Composite District Office Building, Second
Floor, Beside Room No. 09, Collectorate Premises, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil and Distt. Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. PIN 491441.
-------Respondents
WITH
REVP No. 241 of 2019
• M/s Anant Rice Industries ( A Registered Partnership Firm ) Arang,
Tahsil Arang District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Through Our Authorized
Partner Mr. Shrawan Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Loknath Agrawal,
Aged About 67 Years, R/o Anant Rice Industries, NH- 53,
Mahasamund Road, Arang, Police Station and Tahsil Arang,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Sector-19, Rakhi - 1, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
P I N - 462101.
2. Chhattisgarh State Co - Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Its Managing Director, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil
Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. PIN - 492001.
3. District Marketing Officer, Chhattisgarh State Co - Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District Office At Nutan Kisha Rice
Mill, Ramsagar Para Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur,
REVP. 255/2019
-2-
Chhattisgarh. PIN - 492001.
4. Collector ( Food Branch ) Collector Office, Raipur, Tahsil and
District Raipur Chhattisgarh PIN - 492001.
---- Respondents
WITH
REVP No. 254 of 2019
• M/s Shri Ratan Industries (A Partnership Firm), Through Partner
Mr. Ratan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Govind Ram Agrawal, Aged
About 60 Years, R/o Opp. Carmel Convent School, D-Cot Gali,
Ward No. 5, Jagatpur Road, Post and Tahsil and District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Sector-
19, Rakhi-1, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgrah.
2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Its Managing Director, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil
Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District Office At Raigarh, Post and
Tahsil and District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector (Food Branch) Raigarh, Tahsil and District Raigarh,
Chhattisgarh.,
---- Respondents
WITH
REVP No. 4 of 2020
• M/s Uday Rice Process (A Proprietorship Firm) Bandha Bazar,
Tahsil Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
Through Its Sole Proprietor Mr. Vijay Khandelwal S/o Mr. Narayan
Lal Khandelwal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o A-12, Sun City,
Kanchan Bag, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon
Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Sector-19, Rakhi-1, Naya Raipur, District Raipur
Chhattisgarh. Pin 492101
2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Its Managing Director, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil
Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin 492001,
REVP. 255/2019
-3-
3. District Manager, Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing
Federation Limited, Composite District Office Building, Second
Floor, Beside Room No. 9, Collectorate Premises, Rajnandgaon,
Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh Pin 491441
---- Respondents
WITH
REVP No. 14 of 2020
• Shri Shivam Industries (A Partnership Firm), Through Our Partner
Mr. Gulshan Kumar Agrawal S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Agrawal, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Ambedkar Ward, Thana Road, Village
Charmudiya, Post, Police Station and Tahsil Kurud, District
Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Food, Civil Supplies
and Consumer Protection Dept, Mahanadi Bhawan, Sector-19,
Rakhi-1, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited
Through Its Managing Director, 880, Civil Lines, Raipur, Tahsil
Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. District Marketing Officer Chhattisgarh State Co-Operative
Marketing Federation Limited, District Office At Dhamtari, Post,
Tahsil and District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh.
4. Collector (Food Branch) Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. Rajkamal Singh, Advocate
For Respondent 1-State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Panel Lawyer
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr. Ashish Surana, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri P. Sam Koshy, Judge
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
C.A.V. Order
Per Parth Prateem Sahu, J.
1. Petitioners by these petitions have sought review of the common
order dated 24.10.2019 on the ground that because of omission
of the material fact in respect of acceptance of Out Turn Ratio
(OTR), provisionally, mistake of fact and error cropped in the
REVP. 255/2019
judgment under review.
2. Mr. Raj Kamal Singh, learned counsel for petitioners would
submit that in paragraph No. 18 of the order under review, it is
observed that "petitioners have not filed any proceeding under
the Contempt of Court Act in respect of the alleged violation",
whereas the contempt petition was pending on the date of
passing of the order. The order passed in WPC No. 3246/2016
and review petition was also not considered. After passing of the
order in WPC No. 3246/2016, Association filed another writ
petition No. 3016 of 2017, was also not taken note of and hence,
the order under review is to be revisited.
3. Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, learned State counsel would submit that
there is no specific pleading as to what is the error apparent on
the face of record. The ground urged by counsel for petitioners is
already considered in the order under review from paragraphs 14
to 18, hence, there is no merit in the review petitions.
4. Mr. Ashish Surana, learned counsel for Respondents 2 and 3
would submit that the submission made by learned counsel for
petitioners is not correct, Court while considering the Writ
Petitions which are subject matter of the order dated 24.10.2019
called for the record of Writ Petition (C) No. 3246/2016 as also
the record of review petitions which is discussed in paragraph 15
of the order. Division Bench while deciding the writ petitions has
taken note of the order passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 3016/2017.
Referring to the pleadings and grounds of the review petition, he
would submit that petitioners failed to make out any ground for
review of the order. The relief sought in paragraph No. 6.3 of the
Review Petition cannot be granted in exercise of review
jurisdiction. The review petitioner in this proceeding sought relief
REVP. 255/2019
of issuing direction for resolution of the dispute between the
parties by way of arbitration under the terms of agreements.
Petitioners want re-hearing of the entire writ petition in the garb of
review. Pendency of contempt petitions cannot be a ground for
review because the petitioners have not mentioned details of the
contempt petition or its pendency in writ petition. He relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S.
Madhusudan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Ors. in Civil
Appeal No. 5503-5504/2022 in support of his contention.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused
the pleadings of review petitions.
6. Perusal of the review petitions would show that the petitioners
have pleaded the entire facts of the case with respect to the filing
of earlier Writ Petition, the procedure of the custom milled rice,
the dispute of percentage fixed for Out Turn Ratio of the custom
milled rise. In the Review Petitions, petitioners have not
specifically pleaded as to what is the error apparent on the face
of record but for making oral submission that the Court while
passing the order has erroneously recorded that no proceeding
under the Contempt of Courts Act is filed in respect of alleged
violation and further made submission that the Court failed to
take note of the pleadings and order passed in Writ Petition (C)
No. 3246/2016, 3016/2017 and Review Petitions.
7. In paragraph 14 of the order under contempt, Court took note of
Writ Petition (C) No. 3016/2017, wherein the learned counsel for
the Marketing Federation has pointed out that in the
aforementioned Writ Petition the said Federation was not a party
and the order was obtained behind their back. In paragraph 15, it
is mentioned that the Court suo motu called for the record of Writ
REVP. 255/2019
Petition (C) No. 3246/2016 considered the filing of MCC No.
566/2017 by assocition of mill owners seeking modification of the
verdict passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 3246/2016 and its
dismissal in limine. Further took note of the relevant portion of
order passed therein. In the order under review Division Bench
made observation that the contempt proceeding will not lie
against the Respondent-Marketing Federation because the
Federation was not a party to the Writ Petition (C) No. 3016/2017
and after considering in detail the writ petitions were dismissed.
8. The writ petitions were filed against the invocation of bank
guarantee by the Marketing Federation and further sought
direction to the respondents to return the money recovered from
invocations of the petitioners' bank guarantees. The ground
raised of non considering the orders passed in earlier writ
petitions and review petitions is misplaced as the Division Bench
discussed the same in paragraphs 14 to 18 of the order. The
grounds raised and relief in the review petition sought are not the
grounds of review. We do not find any error apparent on the face
of record, which is the prime consideration for review of any
order.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Meera Banja (Smt.) vs.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 has
held that the error apparent on the face of record means such
error of which entire record is not required to be looked into.
Review petition cannot be a re-hearing of original proceeding by
appreciating each and every fact and the law which is a
jurisdiction of an appellate court.
REVP. 255/2019
10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Surendra Kumar Vakil & Ors.
Vs. Chief Executive Officer M.P. & Ors, reported in (2004) 10
SCC 126 has held thus:-
"10. ..........A point that has been heard and
decided cannot form a ground for review even if
assuming that the view taken in the judgment under
review is erroneous."
11. Recently, Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of S. Madhusudhan
Reddy (supra), after considering its earlier pronouncement, had
held thus:
"26. As can be seen from the above exposition of
law, it has been consistently held by this Court in
several judicial pronouncements that the Court's
jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an
appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there
is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record, but an error that has to be detected by a
process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
error apparent on the face of the record for the
Court to exercise its powers of review under Order
XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising
powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake
but not substitute the view taken earlier merely
because there is a possibility of taking two views
in a matter. A judgment may also be open to
review when any new or important matter of
evidence has emerged after passing of the
judgment, subject to the condition that such
evidence was not within the knowledge of the
party seeking review or could not be produced by
it when the order was made despite undertaking an
exercise of due diligence. There is a clear
distinction between an erroneous decision as
against an error apparent on the face of the record.
An erroneous decision can be corrected by the
Superior Court, however an error apparent on the
face of the record can only be corrected by
exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another
circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for
reviewing a judgment has been described as "for
any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has
been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds, at least analogous to those specified in
the rule"
(Refer: Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram, AIR 1922 PC
112 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and
Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and
Others, 1955 SCR 520)"
12. For the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that petitioners
failed to make out any case for review of the order dated
REVP. 255/2019
24.10.2019.
13. Review petitions fail and are dismissed accordingly.
Sd/- Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) (Parth Prateem Sahu)
Judge Judge
Pawan
