1 2025:CGHC:53155-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 338 of 2025 Sunil Kumar Agrawal S/o Late Shri Satyanarayan Agrawal Aged About 52 Years Proprietor Of M/s. Sunil Roadlines, And Residing At Flat No. B/9, Happy Home, Green Land, Vishal Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh - 492001 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Food Corporation Of India Through Its Executive Director, Zonal Office (West), Dattapada Road, Rajendra Nagar, Borivali (East), Mumbai – 400066 2 - General Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Marg, Raipur, Chhattisgarh – 492005 3 - The Assistant General Manager, Food Corporation Of India, Regional Office, Vidhan Sabha Road, Kapa, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.Virat Mishra, Advocate holding the brief of Mr.Devashish Tiwari, Advocate For Respondents : Mr.R.S.Patel, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31.10.2025 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR 2 1. Heard Mr. Virat Mishra, learned counsel holding the brief of Mr. Devashish Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. R.S.Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 8.8.2025 passed by this Court in WPC No.4223 of 2025, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had specifically pleaded in the writ petition that although a partnership deed had been registered in the year 2010, it was never acted upon in reality, as the business was never carried out under the said partnership. The petitioner and his former partner had mutually dissolved the said partnership through a duly executed and registered affidavit of dissolution dated 24.10.2010, which was further supported by a certificate of dissolution issued by the Registrar of Firms, Chhattisgarh, dated 12.09.2012. It was further submitted before this Court that in all subsequent dealings, including participation in the FCI tender of 2014, the petitioner had acted in the capacity of a sole proprietor and had disclosed this status in every official document, including GST returns, invoices, contracts and correspondence. From the face of record, it was clear that at no point was there any concealment, misrepresentation, or suppression regarding the nature of the petitioner’s business entity. Despite the aforementioned 3 documents having been placed on record, the GRC ignored the dissolution affidavit dated 24.10.2010 and the Registrar's certificate dated 12.09.2012, and instead drew its conclusions solely on the basis of the existence of the erstwhile partnership deed. Moreover, this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, did not advert to the said determinative documents and accepted the findings of the GRC without judicial scrutiny. He further submits that this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has noted the findings of the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) dated 07.10.2016, wherein it was concluded that the petitioner intended to convert his proprietorship into a partnership and that there was concealment of material facts and based on the said report, respondent No.2 passed the order dated 04.11.2016 forfeiting all EMD, SD, running bills and bank guarantees and blacklisting the petitioner for five years. It was further recorded that the GRC by its report dated 24.03.2025 upheld such forfeiture by relying on the partnership deed dated 01.10.2010 and its dissolution on 12.09.2012, and by doubting the genuineness of the affidavit of dissolution dated 24.10.2010 on the ground of mismatch of stamp paper serial numbers. He also submits that the aforesaid findings are unsustainable in law as well as in fact. The affidavit of dissolution dated 24.10.2010 and the Registrar's certificate dated 12.09.2012 conclusively established that the partnership was never acted upon and stood dissolved much prior to the tender of 4 2014. From the face of record, the allegation of concealment could not have been upheld. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the order of blacklisting proceeded on the allegation of discrepancy in the serial numbers of the stamp paper on which the affidavit of dissolution was executed, even though the said issue had already been raised and conclusively resolved by the competent authority of the Food Corporation of India vide its communication dated 21.10.2014, wherein it was categorically recorded that no manipulation or illegality existed, and in spite of this closure, the Grievance Redressal Committee sought to revive the objection and this Court affirmed the said such reliance without reference communication, thereby ignoring material evidence on record and committing an error apparent on the face of the proceedings. He further contended that the allegation of inflated transport bills, as relied upon in the order of blacklisting, is already pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court in Money Suit No. B-27/2019, and till date no finding of liability has been recorded against the petitioner, therefore, reliance upon such unproven and sub-judice allegations to impose the drastic civil consequence of blacklisting is not only arbitrary and premature but also contrary to settled principles of law, and the impugned judgment, in affirming such reliance, stands vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record. It is also a matter of record that this Court, in WPC No. 3206 of 2016, had directed the respondents to decide the 5 petitioner’s representation within three months and in pursuant to the said directions, the petitioner complied and submitted a detailed the representation dated 26.12.2024. However, the respondents passed the impugned order only on 27.03.2025, well beyond the time stipulated by this Court, and without furnishing any explanation for such delay. The impugned judgment failed to take note of the said important circumstance. He also contended that during the subsistence of the contract, the petitioner had been issued a Performance Certificate dated 03.06.2016 by the Food Corporation of India itself, certifying that the petitioner had satisfactorily fulfilled all his contractual obligations. 5. He submitted that no show cause, warning or complaint was ever issued to the petitioner during the execution of the contract. The said vital document was annexed to the writ petition, but was not considered or discussed in the impugned judgment. Hence, on the said fact, the impugned judgment dated 08.08.2025 deserves to be reviewed in the interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that this Court, while dismissing the writ petition, has relied entirely upon the findings of the GRC without examining whether those findings were based on an objective evaluation of the material on record. The cumulative effect of all the above errors namely, factual misreading of the pleadings, non-consideration of determinative documents such as the dissolution affidavit, Registrar's certificate, FCI communication 6 of 2014, Performance Certificate of 2016, and failure to address violation of principles of natural justice, coupled with reliance on unproven allegations has resulted in grave injustice. This Court dismissed the writ petition primarily relying on the findings of the Grievance Redressal Committee (GRC) and the earlier departmental communications, and held that the Petitioner had not challenged the blacklisting order, thereby declining to exercise writ jurisdiction. The said judgment suffers from grave and manifest errors apparent on the face of record and the same deserves to be reviewed and recalled for the reasons set out hereinbelow. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order under review. 8. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition, which is not permissible and tenable in law. 9. It is well settled that scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and only an error apparent on face of record can be corrected in the said jurisdiction and re-appraisal/re-appreciation cannot be done in exercise of said jurisdiction as that would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is impermissible in law (Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai1, Meera Bhanja (Smt) v. 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 7 Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt)2, Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others3, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others4, Akhilesh Yavad v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others5 and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others6.) 10. The grounds raised by review petitioner in this review petition cannot be permitted to be raised in review petition. Even otherwise, there is no error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 11. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu 2 (1995) 1 SCC 170 3 (1996) 10 SCC 174 4 AIR 2000 SC 1650 5 (2013) 2 SCC 1 6 (2017) 4 SCC 692