1 2025:CGHC:56700 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 382 of 2025 1 - South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through General Manager (P And A), South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Seepat Road Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 2 - The General Manager South Eastern Coalfield Limited, Bishrampur, Police Station And Tehsil Bishrampur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohd. Wasi S/o Late Shri S Mohammad Aged About 67 Years R/o Quarter No. 1-B/156 Colony Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur Tehsil - Surajpur, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Review Petitioner : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate For respondent No.1 : Mr. Palash Jha, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Devershi Thakur, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 21.11.2025 1. The review petitioner has filed this review petition for modification/review of order dated 03.09.2025 passed in WPL No.19 of 2022, whereby, this Court directed the respondent to vacate the residential accommodation allotted by the SECL within a period of 30 days, at the same time, observation made by learned Tribunal with regard to standard penal rent was quashed. 2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that as the employee occupied the accommodation beyond the specified period and the penal rent was natural consequence and it should have been adjusted against the dues payable including the gratuity. In support of his contentions, he has placed re- REKHA SINGH 2 liance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Steel Authority of India Vs. Raghbendra Singh, reported in 2021 (18) SCC 272. He would contend that the order whereby the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal with regard to standard penal rent was quashed may be modi- fied. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Agrawal. He would submit that this issue was not raised at the time of hearing of writ petition and in this review petition, for the first time, this issue has been raised, therefore, this issue should not be entertained. He would contend that the review petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials/documents available on the record. 5. In the matter of Raghbendra Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the observations made in the order impugned with regard to principles of penal rent being charged on the ground that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period,the penal rent would be the natural consequence. Para 2 is reproduced herein below : “2.We, however, set aside the observations made in paras 19 and 21 qua the principles of penal rent being charged as we are of the view that if an employee occupies a quarter beyond the specified period, the penal rent would be the natural consequence and such penal rent can be adjusted against the dues payable including gratuity. This is so in view of the judgment in Secretary, ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier - (2005) 5 SCC 245 and the reliance placed in the impugned judgment on the case of Ram Naresh Singh v. Bokaro Steel Plant [Civil Appeal No.4740/2007] dated 31.03.2017 is misplaced as is not even a judgment but an order in the given facts of the case. 6. The observation made by the learned Tribunal with regard to standard penal rent was quashed on the ground that the SECL had not made payment of retiral dues to the respondent No.1 and that was the reason, he did not vacate the accommodation. 7. In peculiar circumstances of that case, the said order was passed. 3 8. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the scope of review jurisdiction and exercise of power in following matters : 9. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise.” 10. In the matter of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in 2019 (20) SCC 753, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 15.1 held that:- 15.1. In Inderchand Jain it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order. 11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) 56. It follows, therefore, that the 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. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." 33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under: "The law on the subject exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder: (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 4 mistake or error apparent on the fact of 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 be 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 of 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. In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 11. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that “The scope of review is limited and under the disguise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.” 12. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 13. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred judgments, I do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition. Accordingly, the instant review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE Rekha