1 2026:CGHC:22519-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 142 of 2026 M/s Abhiyantri Enterprises Private Ltd. Through- Abhishek Sinha, S/o S.R. Sinha Regional Office- Fifo 14, 5th Floor Corporate Hub South Block- Surya Treasure Island Mall, Bhilai District- Durg (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Secretary Department Of Energy Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Chief Electrical Inspector, 2nd Floor B- Block- Indravati Bhawan Naya Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Co. Ltd Through- The Managing Director Vidyut Seva Bhavan Donganiya, City And District- Raipur (C.G.) 4 - M/s Nachiketa Power And Steel Pvt. Ltd Through- Nakul Arya Plot No. 35/36/44/45, Silpahari Industrial Area, City And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 5 - M/s Aviral Traders Through The Proprietor Vikas Sharma C/o Rajendra Kumar Umathe 46, Cluster 11, Kashi Ram Nagar, City And District Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, G.A. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:35:08 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate for respondents / State. 2. The petitioner has filed this review petition against the order dated 13.03.2026 passed by this Court in WPC No. 1101/2026, whereby the Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ appeal filed by the appellant/petitioner herein. 3. The petitioner has preferred this present petition praying for following relief: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that in view of the above the order dated 13/03/2025 (Annexure A/1) may kindly be reviewed/recalled with suitable direction. Any other order or direction may kindly be issued for meeting the ends of justice in the present circumstances.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was assigned by respondent No. 3 to undertake construction of a switchyard and, in pursuance thereof, obtained various statutory permissions and approvals from the concerned authorities and completed the construction work. It is the case of the petitioner that for obtaining final approval for connection of the switchyard with the main 3 transmission line, respondent No. 4, without authority and contrary to the contractual arrangement, wrongfully engaged respondent No. 5 to expedite the process and secure approval for an incomplete switchyard. Thereafter, respondent No. 2 conducted inspection of the switchyard and, despite the petitioner’s allegation that the switchyard remained incomplete and suffered from several deficiencies including anomalies in the Single Line Diagram (SLD), granted permission for connection to the main line in favour of the respondent companies. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner submitted representations before respondent Nos. 1 and 2 seeking cancellation of the impugned permission and pointing out the alleged irregularities, but no action was taken. Consequently, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing W.P.C. No. 1101/2026 before this Hon’ble Court. It is further stated that during the hearing at the admission stage, the respondent authorities produced several fresh documents containing disputed and allegedly misleading facts, copies whereof were not supplied to the petitioner in advance, and since such documents disclosed new and material facts without affording adequate opportunity to address the same, the petitioner has filed the present review petition seeking reconsideration of the order passed in the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court failed to appreciate that the petitioner was the duly authorized and licensed contractor entrusted with construction and 4 commissioning of the switchyard and had obtained all requisite statutory approvals and permissions from the competent authorities for execution and energisation of the project, and therefore the respondent authorities could not have ignored the petitioner’s legal status while permitting respondent No. 5 to undertake final charging of the switchyard. It is contended that the inspection conducted by respondent No. 2 was vitiated by serious irregularities, inasmuch as mandatory ABT meters, which form an essential component of the switchyard and had been procured and duly tested for installation, were admittedly not installed at the time of inspection, yet clearance for charging was granted in favour of the respondent companies. Learned counsel submits that such omission is in direct contravention of the approved Single Line Diagram (SLD) and would adversely affect calculation of inflow and outflow of electricity, thereby causing possible loss to Chhattisgarh State Power Distribution Company Limited. It is further argued that the approval granted by respondent No. 2 is contrary to Regulation 45 of the Central Electricity Authority (Measures relating to Safety and Electric Supply) Regulations, 2023, as no written approval was obtained for alterations allegedly made to the installation and no recall order was passed despite knowledge of the incomplete infrastructure. It is also submitted that two distinct SLDs were approved for the same switchyard in favour of different license holders and the charging permission was granted on the basis of an earlier SLD without cancelling the 5 subsequent approval issued in favour of the petitioner, thereby rendering the inspection and approval process arbitrary and legally unsustainable. Learned counsel further contends that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 misrepresented before the authorities by using test reports and technical documents prepared by the petitioner as if the same were generated by respondent No. 5, and that no no-objection certificate was ever obtained from the petitioner before assigning the work to the third party. According to the petitioner, the impugned approval has been procured by fraud, suppression and misrepresentation of material facts, and the same ought to have been considered while deciding the writ petition and review petition. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the learned Court after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have perused the impugned order under review. 8. It appears that the petitioner by presentation of this review petition seek 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 6 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. 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 judgment under review warranting invocation of review jurisdiction. 11.Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet 1 (1987) 1 SCC 61 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