1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 199 of 2025 Order Reserved on: 10.12.2025 Order Delivered on: 31.1.2026 1 - Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Federation Limited, Sector 24, C B D Complex, 6th Floor, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur, C.G. --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jitendra Dewangan (Proprietor Of Maa Parmeshwari Rice Mill) S/o Bhanuram Dewangan Aged About 63 Years Business Place- Village- Charbhata, Tahsil- Dongargarh, District- Rajnandgaon, C.G. Present R/o- Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 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. 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 4 - C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited Rajnandgaon, District RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Rajnandgaon, C.G. 5 - Collector (Food Department) Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 6 - District Marketing Officer Department Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. 7 - Food Corporation Of India (F C I) Regional Office- Mova, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Raipur, District- Raipur, C.G. --- Respondent(s) REVP No. 198 of 2025 1 - Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Federation Limited Through General Manager, Chhattisgarh State Co Operative Marketing Fedaration Limited, Sector 24, Cbd Complex, 6th Floor, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.3). ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - Lalit Agrawal (Partner Director) S/o Late Ramchandra Agrawal Aged About 54 Years M/s Balgopal Industries, Flat No. E/6, Baldev Estate, Behind Akansha Hotel, Jagdalpur, District- Bastar (C.G.), Firms Address- 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 3 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Deparment Of Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Protection, Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya, New Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Respondent No.2). 4 - C.G. State Civil Supplies Corporation Jagdalp C.G. Limited, District- Bastar (C.G.) (Petitioner No.4). 5 - Collector (Food Department), Jagdalpur, 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, (C.G.) District- Raipur (Peititioner No.7). --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Animesh Tiwari, Advocate and Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer. For Petitioner No. 1 in REVP No. 198/2025 : Mr. Lalit Agrawal, appears in person. For Food Corporation of India : Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 in REVP No. 199/2025 : Mohd. Waquar Rizvi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Order 1. Since common question of facts and law is involved in both the 4 cases, as such, both the petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners have prayed for certain reliefs in the review petition. Though there are some sort of differences in respect of prayer made by the petitioners in both the review petitions, however, in sum and substance, the reliefs are altogether similar and identical. The reliefs prayed in REVP No. 199/2025 Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited vs. Jitendra Dewangan & Ors) are quoted hereinbelow in order to consider these cases and to decide the same. “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to exercise its jurisdiction vested in it under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 151 of CPC and Rule 90 of High Court Rules, 2007 and in exercise thereof review the order dated 30.04.2025 passed in W.P. (C) No. 1449/2025 (Annexure P/1) taking cognizance and reference to the letter No. 4-9/2024/29-1 dated 26.03.2025 (Annexure P/2) with observations and directions made in para 6 and 7 of the judgment of identical matters (Annexure P/3) in the interest of justice.” 3. These two review petitions have been preferred by the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited seeking modification of the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 30.04.2025, passed in WPC No. 2112/2025 and WPC No. 1449/2025 respectively, to the limited extent that the reference to 5 Letter No. 4-9/2024/29-A dated 26.03.2025 be duly taken into consideration and appropriately observed, and that the directions issued in paragraph Nos. 6 and 7 of the orders passed in other connected and similar writ petitions be made applicable and followed in the present matters as well. 4. In these petitions as well, owing to an inadvertent and bona fide oversight at the relevant point of time, the petitioners were unable to advance their submissions on this particular aspect, and consequently the said issue could not be placed before the Court for consideration despite being material and relevant to the adjudication of the matter. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, owing to the non- mentioning of the aforesaid order, certain practical difficulties are arising in the effective compliance and implementation of the directions issued by this Court. It is further contended that the specific reference to the order dated 26.03.2025 could not be incorporated due to an inadvertent and unintentional mistake, notwithstanding the fact that references to the said order have been duly noticed and considered by this Court in other similarly placed petitions. In view of the said omission and the consequential hardship caused, learned counsel prays that the present review petition be graciously allowed in the interest of justice. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Prakhar Dashore, Advocate, appearing on behalf of Mr. R. S. Patel, Advocate, and Mr. Moh. Waquar Rizvi, 6 Advocate, jointly and vehemently opposed the prayer advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, contending that the relief so sought is wholly untenable in law and on facts and, in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be permitted to be granted. 7. Mr. Lalit Agrawal, appearing in person in the present matter, has vehemently contended that the impugned order has been passed strictly in accordance with law after due consideration of all relevant facts and circumstances, and therefore does not call for any review or interference. He has further submitted that the order is clear, unambiguous, and self-explanatory, leaving no scope for any contrary or strained interpretation. According to him, the attempt made by the Chhattisgarh State Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited to misconstrue and misinterpret the true purport and intent of the order is wholly erroneous, misleading, and untenable in law, and such an interpretation cannot be permitted to defeat the object of the order or to reopen issues which have already attained finality. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further taking into account that orders have been passed in a bunch of petitions, including WPC No. 2373/2025 and other connected matters, wherein specific reference has been made in paragraph 6 to the correspondence dated 26.03.2025 bearing reference No. 7 4-9/2024/29-1, and further noting that paragraph 7 of the said orders also contains an explicit mention of the order dated 26.03.2025. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position and upon due consideration of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it would be just, proper and appropriate to review the aforesaid order, with a further direction that the following paragraphs shall also be read conjointly and harmoniously along with the order dated 30.04.2025, so as to give complete effect to the intent, scope, and context of the directions already issued. 10. Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 10.12.2025 31.1.2026 - 31.1.2026 Raghu Jat