- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8640 RP No. 100027 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100027 OF 2025 BETWEEN: BASAVARAJ S/O MALLAPPA DEVARMANI AGE: 39 YEARS OCC: NIL (HANDICAPPED) R/O: BOLAKADABI POST TQ: SAUNDATTI DISTRICT BELAGAVI – 591 129. …PETITIONER (BY SRI H.M.DARIGOND, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECREATARY FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES DEPARTMENT AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS M.S.BUILDING VASANTH NAGAR BENGALURU – 01. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND CIVIL SUPPLIES AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8640 RP No. 100027 of 2025 BELAGAVI DIST BELAGAVI – 590 001. 3. THE JOINT DIRECTOR FOOD, CIVIL AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS BELAGAVI DISTRICT BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. THE TAHSILDAR SAUNDATTI TALUK SAUNDATTI DISTRICT BELAGAVI – 591 126. 5. SRI MAHADEV S/O SIDDAPPA SOMANATTI AGE 50 YEARS OCC: NIL R/O BOLAKADABI TALUK SAUNDATTI DISTRICT BELAGAVI – 591 126. 6. SRI SHIVANAND S/O VITHAL DURGI AGE 30 YEARS R/O GORAGUDDI TALUK SAUNDATTI DISTRICT BELAGAVI – 591 126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.GIRIJA HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE AND SMT.PALLAVI S.PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATES; R6 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE (1) OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8640 RP No. 100027 of 2025 12.02.2025 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO. 106605/2024 BY ALLOWING THE REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri H M Dharigond, learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Smt Girija Hiremath, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and Sri Srinand A Pacchapure and Smt Pallavi S Pachhapure, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. 2. This Court disposed Writ Petition No.106605 of 2024 by the following order dated 12-02-2025: “ORDER a. The writ petition is allowed. b. The impugned orders dated 27.10.2023 and 03.09.2024, passed by the third respondent and the second respondent, respectively, stand quashed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8640 RP No. 100027 of 2025 c. The official respondents are directed to allot the fair price shop in favour of the petitioner, if he fulfills all other conditions, except the two, considered in the course of the order. d. The said process of allotment in favour of the petitioner shall be done within 30 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. e. Till such time, the allotment of the fifth respondent shall not be disturbed.” Challenging the said order, it transpires that the 5th respondent, files a writ appeal in Writ Appeal No. 100131 of 2025, which comes to be dismissed on 04-03-2025. After the dismissal, the present review petitioner, who was not a party to the proceedings in the writ petition, as also the writ appeal, is said to have preferred a writ petition in Writ Petition No.101896 of 2025 challenging the allotment made in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the order passed by this Court. In the interregnum, also prefers a review petition seeking review of the order in Writ Petition No.106605 of 2024, on the score that it affects the right of the petitioner. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8640 RP No. 100027 of 2025 3. The finding rendered by this Court nowhere affects the right of any third party. Be that as it may. The subject petition, if on the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner would be entertained, it would amount to re-hearing the entire matter all over again, after it being affirmed by the Division Bench. The added circumstance that would not merit entertainment of the petition, apart from what is observed hereinabove is that, the petitioner himself has preferred another writ petition in WP No.101896 of 2025 projecting all the submissions that he is now wanting to be made in the subject review petition. This cannot be permitted by any canon of law. There is no error apparent, on the face of the record, for this Court to entertain the review, recall the order passed on 12-02-2025 in W.P.No.106605 of 2024. Review Petition, lacking in merit, stands rejected. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE BKP/List No.: 19 Sl No.: 10