1 2025:CGHC:42867 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 243 of 2025  Dcm Shriram Limited (Its Unit M/s Shriram Fertilizers And Chemicals) Having Its Office At And 1st Floor, Plot No. 82, Institutional Area, Sector- 32, Gurugram- 122003, Having Its Registered Office At, 2nd Floor, (West Wing) Worldmark 1, Aerocity New Delhi, South West Delhi, Delhi- 110037, Through Its Authorized Signatory Mr. Kumar Devbrat (Manager, Legal) Its Units 1. M/s Shriram Bioseed Genetics, United Agro Agency, Plot No. 4, Soni Vihar, Hirapur Road, Mahiba Bazar, Raipur 2. M/s Shriram Fertilizers And Chemicals P-18. Kavita Nagar Avanti Vihar Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. The Managing Director C.G. Rajya Beej Evam Krishi Vikas Nigam Ltd., Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Agriculture, Secretariat Building, Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Devbrat Kumar and Ms. Anushka Sharma, Advocates For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 25/08/2025 1. This review petition has been brought praying for review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2045 of 2019 dated 02.04.2025. 2 2. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the observations recorded in para – 4 of the order dated 02.04.2025 to the effect that “Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the order passed by respondent No. 1 to the extent of black-listing, may be treated proper” were neither stated nor conceded by the counsel during the arguments. He further submits that in the last two lines of para 11, the Court has recorded that “The order with regard to blacklisting and forfeiture of EMD shall remain intact.” He contends that the order of blacklisting has been set aside for all practical purposes, and even otherwise, it is not in force after the expiry of five years; however, the petitioner company may face difficulties in the near future in the realm of contracts. He argues that paras 4 and 11 require modification; therefore, the order dated 02.04.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2045 of 2019 may be modified up to that extent. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the contention made therein by the counsel for the petitioner, and this review petition is misconceived. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State supports the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents/ material available on the record. 6. From a perusal of the order dated 02.04.2025, it appears that due to inadvertence, incorrect observations have been recorded in paras 4 and 11. Therefore, the phrase “proper” mentioned in para 4 shall be 3 replaced by the phrase “improper” and para 11 shall be replaced by the following:- PARA 11: “Taking into consideration the facts of the present case, the manner in which the impugned order has been passed by respondent No.1, and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the impugned order No. H.O/CGBKBVN/RCO-53/2015-16/2408 dated 05/07/2016 is hereby quashed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to forfeiture of EMD.” 7. Accordingly, this review petition stands allowed, and the direction issued in the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed in W.P.(S) No. 4752 of 2024 is modified. 8. The aforementioned modifications shall be part of the original order, and paras 4 and 11 shall be replaced accordingly. Sd/- Rakesh Mohan Pandey JUDGE Ajinkya Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.08.26 16:45:44 +0530