1 / 3 2026:CGHC:20012 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 111 of 2026 Manish Mishra S/o Late Shiv Kumar Mishra, Aged About 45 Years Occupation- Co-Operative Inspector, Office Of Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur Division, R/o Near Hanuman Temple, Beside Arpa River, Subhash Nagar Gondpara, P.S. City Kotwali, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Co-Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Chhattisgarh, Indrawati Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Joint Registrar, Co-Operative Societies Bilaspur Division, Composite Building Near Nehru Chowk, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order on Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2026.05.05 10:31:20 +0530 2 / 3 29/04/2026 1. This Review Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 09.02.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No.3031 of 2024. 2. Though there is no specific prayer in the review petition that the date of rejection of representation is not specifically mentioned in the order but for liberty to challenge the order dated 08.08.2024 passed by respondent which is the decision taken on representation submitted by petitioner against adverse remarks made in his ACR. However, while passing the order in writ petition, this Court has considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner of taking decision on representation submitted by petitioner before DPC against adverse remarks made in his ACR and further considered that on the date of passing of the order in writ petition there was a decision on the representation rejecting representation submitted by petitioner. 3. In the aforementioned facts of case I do not find any good ground to exercise the jurisdiction of review as the fact of taking decision on representation submitted by petitioner prior to holding of meeting of DPC was considered and decided. Prayer which is made for challenge the order passed by authority on the representation is very well open to petitioner and for which no further order is required. 4. It is settled law that every factual or legal error cannot be a subject matter of review, and can be considered by the appellate Court. I find support from the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Asharfi Devi (dead) through LRs Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. reported in (2019) 5 SCC 86. 3 / 3 5. This Court cannot sit as an appellate Court in the disguise of review as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Shanti Conductors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board & Ors. reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677. 6. For the foregoing discussions, I do not find any good ground to admit this review petition. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen