APHC010601542024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA IA 2 & 4 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO: 31376/2024 Between: 1. KATTA VENKATA RAMANAIAH, S/O.VENKAIAH F.P. SHOP DEALER, SHOP NO.5, KATTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KONDEPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CIVIL SUPPLIES, SECRETARIAT AT VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT 2. THE COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOLE 3. THE COLLECTORCS, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ONGOIE3. 4. THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER, ONGOLE, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 5. THE TAHSILDAR, KONDIPI, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 6. THE ENFORCEFMENT DEPUTY TAHSIIDAR, SINGARAYKONDA 7. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COLLECTORVIGILANCE CIVIL SUPPLIES, PRAKASAM DISTRICT 8. BOKKISAM SESHAMMA, W/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED 45 YEARS, PRESIDENT-SHG, R/O. KATTAVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KONDAPI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. R8 IS IMPLEADED AS PER COURT'S ORDER DT. 20/01/2025 IN IA 1/2025. ...RESPONDENT(S): may be pleased to review the order dated 23-09-2025 in WP No. 31376 of 2024 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Alapati Vivekananda VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 2 Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. PETLURI NAGA RAJU 2. GP FOR REVENUE 3. GP FOR CIVIL SUPPLIES VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 3 HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE V.SUJATHA I.A.Nos.2 and 4 of 2025 in W.P.No.31376 of 2024 ORDER: I.A.Nos.2 and 4 of 2025 (review petitions) are filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code by respondent Nos.4 and 8 (hereinafter be referred to as review petitioners) in writ petition No.31376 of 2024 to review the order dated 23.09.2025 passed by this Court, on the ground that the review petitioners failed to assert Court that the authorization of the writ petitioner was cancelled vide proceedings dated 16.05.2025. 2. Heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for the 4th respondent and Sri. Petluri Nagaraju, learned counsel for the 8th respondent. 3. It is the case of learned Assistant Government Pleader for Civil Supplies appearing for respondent No.4/review petitioner that the writ petitioner’s authorization was cancelled way back in the month of May, 2025 vide proceedings dated 16.05.2025 as the writ petitioner has no requisite educational qualification to be continued as a fair price shop dealer as on the date of his VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 4 appointment, however, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court on 23.09.2025 due to inadvertence. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 8th respondent/review petitioner contends that the writ petitioner and the respondent officials colluded with each other by not bringing the cancellation proceedings to the notice of this Court. 4. For better appreciation of the present Review Application, this Court feels it appropriate to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which reads as follows: <Order XLVII Rule 1 – Application For Review of Judgment: (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 5 (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 5. However, even as per the Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, there is a very limited scope for review. A review can be ordered only on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Even as per the judgment in the case of <Allahabad Electricity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 2003 Guj. 157=, a mere erroneous decision per se does not permit the Court to undertake review. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of <Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambhai reported in AIR 2003 SC 2095= held that the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of <Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India reported in 2000 (6) SC 224= observed and VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 6 held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The Supreme Court also held in the case of <State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another reported in 2008 (8) SCC 612= which is as follows: <22. The term <mistake or error apparent= by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self- evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.= 8. In <State of Maharastra Vs Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak and Another reported in (1982) 2 SCC 463=, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows: <When we drew the attention of the learned Attorney General to the concession made before the High Court, Shri A.K. Sen, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra before the High Court and led the arguments for the respondents there and who appeared VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 7 for Shri Antulay before us intervened and protested that he never made any such concession and invited us to peruse the written submissions made by him in the High Court. We are afraid that we cannot launch into an enquiry as to what transpired in the High Court. It is simply not done. Public Policy bars us. Judicial decorum restrains us. Matters of judicial record are unquestionable. They are not open to doubt. Judges cannot be dragged into the arena. "Judgments cannot be treated as mere counters in the game of litigation". We are bound to accept the statement of the Judges recorded in their judgment, as to what transpired in court. We cannot allow the statement of the judges to be contradicted by statements at the Bar or by affidavit and other evidence. If the judges say in their judgment that something was done, said or admitted before them, that has to be the last word on the subject. The principle is well settled that statements of fact as to what transpired at the hearing, recorded in the judgment of the court, are conclusive of the facts so stated and no one can contradict such statements by affidavit or other evidence. If a party thinks that the happenings in court have been wrongly recorded in a judgment, it is incumbent upon the party, while the matter is still fresh in the minds of the judges, to call attention of the very judges who have made the record to the fact that the statement made with regard to his conduct was a statement that had been made in error. That is the only way to have the record corrected. If no such step is taken, the matter must necessarily end there. Of course a party may resile and an Appellate Court may permit him in rare and appropriate cases to resile from a concession on the ground that the concession was made on a wrong appreciation of the law and had led to gross injustice; but, he may not call in question the very fact of making the concession as recorded in the judgment.= VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 8 9. In <Smt.Krishna Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari and Others reported in 2005 SCC Online ALL 1533= the Court has observed as follows: <41. In view of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other "sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Even the judgment given subsequent to the decision in a case can be no ground for entertaining the review. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court. If a counsel has argued a case to his satisfaction and he had not raised the particular point for any reason whatsoever, it cannot be a ground of review for the reason that he was the master of his case and might not have considered it proper to press the same or could have thought that arguing that point would not serve any purpose. If a case has been decided after full consideration of arguments made by a counsel, he cannot be permitted, even under the garb of doing justice or substantial justice, to engage the court again to decide the controversy already decided. If a party is aggrieved of a judgment, it must approach the Higher Court but entertaining a review to re-consider the case VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 9 would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction, conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. Justice, as explained above, connotes different meaning to different persons in different contexts, therefore, courts cannot be persuaded to entertain a review application to do justice unless it lies only on the grounds mentioned in the statutory provisions.= 10. In <Smt. Krishna Pathak Vs. Vinod Shankar Tiwari and Others reported in 2005 SCC Online ALL 1533=, the Court held that, under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re- open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that it may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. 11. In <Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application Under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 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 VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 10 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. In the said judgment, after considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had summed up as under: (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 Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some 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 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 VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 11 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. 12. In the case of <Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB reported in ((2020) 2 SCC 677)= the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and held that scope of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure is limited and under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Recently, in <S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others reported in (2023) 13 SCC 515, the Apex Court while referring to <Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra= and <Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB= (referred supra)= held that even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 12 erroneous the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of powers Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 14. Further, discovery of any new fact or evidence necessarily has to be an important or relevant factor to the extent that had it been brought on record at the time when the order was passed, it would have an impact and might have altered the decision. Moreover, absence of such important fact or evidence on record at the time of decision, must not be the result of negligent attitude of the concerned person and therefore such person applying for review is required by law to strictly prove that such fact or evidence was not within his knowledge or could not be adduced, even after exercising due diligence and unless such proof is produced, review application shall not be entertained. 15. Now, a perusal of the material available on record would go to show that W.P.No.31376 of 2024 was allowed by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2025 and the suspension proceeding issued to the writ petitioner were set-aside on the ground that VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 13 though the period of 90 days was lapsed, the enquiry was not commenced. Further, the 4th respondent was directed to complete the enquiry initiated against the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. 16. In the present case, the review petitioners are seeking review of the order passed by this Court on the ground that the suspension proceedings dated 26.12.2024 issued by the 4th respondent were set-aside by this Court though the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled vide proceedings dated 16.05.2025 by the 4th respondent after conducting a detailed enquiry. 17. Admittedly, neither the 4th respondent, being the appointing authority of the fair price shop dealer nor the 8th respondent, who is the temporary dealer of the subject fair price shop have brought to the notice of this Court on 23.09.2025, that the petitioner’s authorization was cancelled vide proceedings dated 16.05.2025. Though the said fact is in knowledge of learned Assistant Government Pleader and as well as the learned counsel for the 8th respondent, they failed to apprise the same to the notice of this Court on 23.09.2025 VS,J IAs_2 & 4_2025 in WP_31376_2024 14 18. Undisputedly, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court in <Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India= (referred supra) the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. In the present facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that if the corrections sought for the review petitioners are allowed, there would be change in the final result of the order. Moreover, this Court has power only to allow review application for the correction of typographical mistakes crept in the order inadvertently, but not to substitute the view taken by this Court earlier or to introduce any new point. Therefore, the review applications deserves to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the review applications are dismissed. Due to the inadvertence on the part of the review petitioners (respondent Nos.4 and 8 in the writ petition), they shall pay costs of Rs.5,000/- each to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority. __________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 22.12.2025 GSS