08.07.2026 Item No.44 Court No.01 Avijit Mitra RVW 74 of 2026 with IA No.CAN 1 of 2026 Md. Samim - Versus – State of West Bengal & ors. Ms. Nilanjana Adhya, Mr. Md. Maznu Ahmed …..for the applicant Mr. Sahasrangsu Bhattacharyya, ld. AGP, Ms. Mary Datta, Mr. R. Agarwala ....for the State 1. Affidavit of service filed on behalf of the review applicant is taken on record. Despite service, private respondent is unrepresented. 2. The present review petition has been preferred seeking review of the order dated 17th February, 2026 passed in FMA 1659 of 2025. In connection therewith, an interlocutory application, being IA No. CAN 1 of 2026, has also been filed, praying for stay of the operation of the order dated 17th February, 2026 pending disposal of the review petition. 3. Ms. Adhya, learned advocate appearing for the appellant/review petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’), submits that the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. She contends that, in the order dated 17th February, 2026, this Court observed that the petitioner had not challenged the reasoned order dated 14th September, 2023, whereby his representation dated 28th April, 2023 was rejected by respondent no. 3 herein, and consequently held that the petitioner was estopped from raising the self-same issues in the appeal. 4. Inviting our attention to a representation dated 6th November, 2023 submitted by the petitioner before the Sub- Divisional Controller, Food and Supplies, a copy whereof was forwarded to the Director (DDP&S), Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal, Ms. Adhya contends that the said representation ought to have been treated as an appeal against the order dated 14th September, 2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Controller. 5. Drawing our attention to the vacancy notification dated 7th June, 2022, particularly clause 10(iv) thereof, she further contends that the petitioner fulfilled all the requirements stipulated therein, having possessed both the requisite godown and the adjacent covered space in accordance with the prescribed specifications. According to her, while passing the order dated 17th February, 2026 in FMA 1659 of 2025, this Court failed to take into consideration these two aspects, resulting in an error apparent on the face of the record, which warrants review of the said order. 6. Ms. Datta, learned advocate enters appearance on behalf of the State respondents and denies and disputes the contention raised by Ms. Adhya. 7. Normally, once a judgment or order is delivered, it cannot be altered thereafter. However, a court can be invited to review its judgment only on three grounds: (i) the 2 discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which, after exercising due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not have been produced at the time the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 8. It is a settled proposition of law that contentions raised and decided in the main proceedings cannot be reopened or re-agitated under the guise of a review petition. The power of review should not be confused with the appellate power, which allows an appellate court to correct all errors made by a subordinate court. 9. In the present case, the petitioner seeks a review of the order dated 17.02.2026 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. However, there is a distinct difference between a mere erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. An error can be considered apparent on the face of the record only when it is patent, easily identifiable without the need for elaborate argument, and leaves no room for controversy. Such an error is immediately obvious, as if it stares at one upon a simple glance. The term 'error apparent on the face of the record' refers to an error that can be discerned by a mere perusal of the record, without reference to any external matter, and one that strikes the observer immediately, without requiring a lengthy process of reasoning to pinpoint the error. 10. Pursuant to a notice issued by the concerned respondents inviting applications for appointment to the 3 vacant Fair Price Shop (FPS) dealership, the petitioner submitted his application and participated in the selection process but was not selected. Claiming that the private respondent had been illegally favoured by the authorities, he submitted a representation and thereafter, alleging inaction on the part of the concerned respondents in considering the same, preferred a writ petition, being WPA 19293 of 2023. The said writ petition was disposed of by directing the competent respondent to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation by passing a reasoned order. 11. In compliance with the order passed in WPA 19293 of 2023, the Director, DDP&S, respondent no. 2, considered and rejected the petitioner’s representation by a reasoned order dated 14th September, 2023. The petitioner, however, did not assail the said reasoned order. Instead, he preferred a writ petition, being WPA 26862 of 2023, inter alia, praying for cancellation of the dealership licence granted to the private respondent, grant of the dealership licence in his favour, and consideration of his application dated 6th October, 2023. By an order dated 17.02.2026, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the ground that since the petitioner had not challenged the reasoned order dated 14th September, 2023, he was estopped from reagitating the self-same issues dealt with therein, the said order having attained finality. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an intra-court appeal, being FMA 1659 of 2025, which was disposed of by the order dated 17.02.2026. 4 12. Although this Court concurred with the observation of the learned Single Judge that the petitioner had not challenged the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by respondent no. 3, it nevertheless proceeded to examine the matter on merits, ignoring such technicality. Upon such consideration, this Court found that the Selection Committee had awarded marks to all the participants after assessing their respective eligibility in accordance with the prescribed criteria. It was further observed that this Court could not sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee and the respondent authorities, who were the sole judges of the facts. 13. The order dated 14.09.2023 was passed by the Director, DDP&S, respondent no. 3. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation addressed to the Sub-Divisional Controller, copies whereof were forwarded to respondent no. 3, the Secretary of the concerned Department and the District Controller. However, the said representation neither did challenge the order dated 14.09.2023 nor did contain any prayer for setting aside or cancelling the same. In such circumstances, the contention advanced by Ms. Adhya that the said representation ought to have been treated as an appeal against the order dated 14.09.2023 is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. As regards the petitioner's eligibility, as already observed hereinbefore, the Expert Committee assessed the eligibility of all the candidates in accordance with the prescribed criteria and awarded marks accordingly. This Court has already held that it would not sit in appeal over such determination made by the Expert Committee 5 being the competent authority to assess the factual aspects relating to the candidates' eligibility. 14. Needless to state that matters which ought to have been urged in course of the appeal cannot be agitated afresh through a review petition. 15. In view of this, we do not find any justification to entertain the review petition. 16. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. 17. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. 18. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.) (Tapabrata Chakraborty, A.C.J.) 6