1 2025:CGHC:31282 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 656 of 2025 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, Naya Raipur (C.G.). (Respondent No. 2). ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Lalit Agrawal (Partner / Director - M/s Balgopal Industries) S/o Late Ramchandra Agrawal Aged About 54 Years R/o Flat No. E/6, Baldev Estate, Behind Akansha Hotel, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), Firms Addres- Village- Dhanpunji, Jagdalpur, Dist- Bastar (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 1). 2 - Union Of India Through Deputy Secretary, Ministry Of Consumer Affairs, Food And Public Distribution Department Of Food And Public Distribution, Krishi Bhawan New Delhi. (Respondent No. 1). 3 - Managing Director- Chhattisgarh State Market Federation Maryadit, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No. 3) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 4 - C.G. State Civil Supplies, Corporation Jagdalpur, C.G. Limited, District- Bastar (C.G.). (Petitioner No. 4). 5 - Collector (Food Department), Jagdalpur, C.G. District- Bastar (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 5). 6 - District Marketing Officer, Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 6). 7 - Food Corporation Of India (Fci), Regional Office- Mova, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Petitioner No. 7) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08/07/2025 1. Learned counsel for the applicant has filed the present miscellaneous case seeking modification of the order dated 29.04.2025 passed in WPC No. 2112 of 2025 to the extent of substituting the expression “subject to verification of the quantity and quality of the rice milled” with “subject to correspondence and verification of the quantity of the rice milled.” 2. It is contended by the applicant that inadvertently one of the correspondences, which was filed along with the pleadings, was 3 not considered while deciding the matter and, therefore, the modification sought would merely reflect the correct factual position without altering the nature of the order. 3. Having consider the facts and circumstances of the case and the grounds raised in the MCC, this Court finds no ground to entertain the prayer for modification. The language of the original order dated 29.04.2025 passed in WPC No. 2112/2025 was after due consideration of the facts and submissions placed on record. The modification now sought does not arise from any clerical or arithmetical error or accidental omission. 4. Further, no case has been made out for exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to modify the said order in the manner prayed for. 5. Accordingly, the MCC stands dismissed. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat