- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION NO.38 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 33753 OF 2024 (GM-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SOMANATH SARADAGI S/O. SRI SANGANNA SARADAGI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.68/1, FIRST FLOOR, NALLURHALLI-SIDDAPURA, BENGALURU - 560 066. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HANUMANTHAPPA HARAVI B. GOUDAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY HOME SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGLAURU URBAN DISTRICT, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 4. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 020. 5. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, BBMP, N.R. SQUARE BENGALURU - 560 002. 6. THE PETROLEUM AND EXPLOSIVES SAFETY ORGANIZATION (PESO), MANGALURU SUB CIRCLE OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, CITY CENTRE, OPP. HOTEL ROOPA, BALMATTA ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 001. 7. THE CENTRAL POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD, REGIONAL DIRECTOR SOUTH, NISARGA BHAVAN, 1ST FLOOR, THIMMAIAH ROAD, 7TH D CROSS, SHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 079. 8. THE BHARATH PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., DUPARK TRINITY, NO.17, 7TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. 9. SRI V. SURESH KUMAR S/O. SRI VENKATA SUBBARAMA REDDY, MAJOR BY AGE R/AT NO.78/2, LAKSHMI NARAYANA TEMPLE ROAD ANITHA RAMESH REDDY LAYOUT, MUNNEKOLALA, MARATHAHALLI POST, BENGALURU - 560 037. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION, BY REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 18.12.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P. NO.33753/2024, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) By filing this review petition, what is sought to be reviewed is the order dated 18.12.2024 passed by this court in Writ Petition No.33753 of 2024. 2. The petition which was dismissed by the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2024 was a public interest petition, in which the grievance was raised in respect of setting up of a retail outlet petrol pump by respondent No.9, who had applied for such dealership pursuant to the advertisement issued for the purpose. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 3. The petitioner had objections to the grant of Letter of Intent to respondent No.9 stating that the site which was selected for allotment of petrol outlet was not suitable inasmuch as the canal is passing. 3.1 The court dismissed the petition by observing that Lease Deed dated 19.08.2024 was executed by respondent No.8 in favour of respondent No. 9 and that respondent No.9 was set to commission the petrol outlet. The court observed that before granting the Letter of Intent, the competent authority had examined all the aspects about the compliance including the safety aspects, whereafter only the petrol outlet was allotted by issuing Letter of Intent. The map of the site was also produced by the petitioner himself. 4. Seeking review of the aforesaid order, it was sought to be submitted that the site in question was encroached, and that the land was to be used for residential apartments and that respondent No.8-the Bharath Petroleum Corporation Limited did not obtain statutory approvals and sanctioned licence by giving authority to respondent No.9 to commission the petrol outlet. It was further sought to be submitted that respondent No.7-the Central Pollution - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 Control Board does not permit new retail outlets within the distance of 50 meters of schools, hospitals and residential area, which is also breached. 4.1 It was submitted that since authorities have failed to notice all the above aspects and that the court had not taken into account the same by dismissing the public interest petition, the order may be reviewed and recalled. 5. The scope of review powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the parameters on which the review jurisdiction can be exercised, came to be reiterated in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Ors. [AIR 2013 SC 3301], in which it was observed, “The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC. In view jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 5.1 In Kamlesh Verma (supra), the Apex Court outlined the grounds on which review could not be maintained to be, (i) a repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications, (ii) minor mistakes of inconsequential import, (iii) review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, (iv) review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice, (v) a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re- heard and corrected but lies only for patent error, (vi) the mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review, (vii) the error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched, (viii) the appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition, (ix) review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negative. 5.2 The review applicant cannot be permitted to reopen the case and re-agitate it. In M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Limited - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SSC 167], it was held that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise. 5.3 The scope of review jurisdiction was again considered by the Supreme Court in S. Murali Sundraram vs. Jothibai Kannan [2023 (3) JT 21]. The Supreme Court from its own decision in Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra [(2019 20 SCC 753] extracted the principles regarding exercise of review powers, "... the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. (Para 5.1) 5.4 It was summed up thus, (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” (Para 5.1) 5.5 It is to be emphasised that in order to exercise the review power, the sine qua non is that the order or judgment sought to be reviewed suffers from the error apparent on the face of the record. It is only the error apparent on the face of the record which would justify the court to exercise its power of review. 5.6 The error apparent of the face of the record is such error, which is so striking to render the judgment unsustainable. It consists some conspicuous aspect of illegality rendering the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8137-DB RP No. 38 of 2025 judgment bad in law. An error which requires a long drawn process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record. 6. In the present case, no apparent error on the face of record could be pointed out by learned advocate for the review applicants, nor any error of such kind or an error analogous thereto exists to review the judgment. No ground was made out to review the order. 7. The present review petition is not liable to be entertained in view of above petition obtaining. The petition is accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the review petition, the interlocutory application would not survive and it stands accordingly disposed of. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU/ CR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16