1 CGHC010051672019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Rev. P. No. 209 of 2026 1. Rambhau Dewangan, S/o Shri Mannu Lal Dewangan, aged about 61 years, R/o Village Mohad, Tehsil Dongargaon, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh Present Posted as Deputy Collector, Kabirdham Collector Office Kabirdham District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ...Applicant Versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Director, Sampada Sanchalanalay (Home Department) Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Department of General Administration Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District- Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Home Department Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Treasury Officer Kanker Collector Office Kanker Chhattisgarh. ...Non-applicant (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput) Order in chamber dated 23.07.2026 This application has been preferred seeking review of the order dated 06.02.2026 passed by this Court in WPS No. 8650/2022. By the order sought to be reviewed, the petitioner had specifically challenged the order dated 01.10.2021 by which penal rent of Rs. 07,79,100/- was imposed and the applicant herein was asked to immediately vacate the Government accommodation being occupied by him. 2 2. The case of the applicant is that he was posted as Deputy Collector at Raipur (C.G.) from where he was transferred to Rajnandgaon. At Rajnandgaon he was placed under suspension pursuant to registration of a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and during the existence of suspension he was transferred to Kanker though he was suffering from Ventricular tachycardia fascicular VT hard disease. It is his further case that during the suspension period he was issued the notice dated 01.10.2021 imposing the penal rent amounting to Rs. 07,79,100/- coupled with a direction to vacate the government accommodation being occupied by him at Raipur. Applicant’s case is that during the suspension period he should not have been asked for vacating the government accommodation. 3. It is stated in the review petition that the notice dated 01.10.2021 does not satisfy the mandatory requirement prescribed under Section 4 of the Chhattisgarh Lok Parisar (Bedakhli) Adhiniyam, 1974 inasmuch as no statutory opportunity as contemplated under the said Act was provided to the applicant. It is further stated that the prescribed licence fee and other charges were regularly deducted by the authority itself, and being so, the eviction order should not have been passed coupled with the imposition of penal rent on the applicant. 4. Perused the order sought to be reviewed as also the documents appended to the review petition, closely. Having done that, this Court finds that almost all the averments taken in the review petition have already been dealt with while deciding the Writ Petition. Perusal of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC read with Section 114 and Rule 90 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 clearly demonstrates that a review lies only upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite exercise of due diligence could not come within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced at the time the order was passed. The perusal thereof further reveals that the review can be entertained where there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. All this, however, is not the case herein. 3 5. While dealing with the review jurisdiction of the Court the Supreme Court in the matter of Lily Thomas and others v. Union of India and others reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224 has held that the power of review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised merely because another view is possible. Relevant portion thereof reads as under:- “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.” 6. Similarly, in the matter of Vikram Singh alias Vicky Walia and another vs. State of Punjab and another reported in (2017) 8 SCC 518 it has been held by the Supreme Court as under:- “22.Summarising the principles when review will be maintainable and review will not be maintainable, the following was held in paras 20.1 and 20.2 (Kamlesh Verma case16, SCC pp. 333-34) "20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki23 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius 24 to 4 mean 'a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule'. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. 25 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 23. In view of the above, it is clear that scope, ambit and parameters of review jurisdiction are well defined. Normally in a criminal proceeding, review applications 11 cannot be entertained except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. Further, the power given to this Court under Article 137 is wider and in an appropriate case can be exercised to mitigate a manifest injustice. By review application an applicant cannot be allowed to re-argue the appeal on the grounds which were urged at the time of the hearing of the criminal appeal. Even if the applicant succeeds in establishing that there may be another view possible on the conviction or sentence of the accused that is not a sufficient ground for review. This Court shall exercise its jurisdiction to review only when a glaring omission or patent mistake has crept in the earlier decision due to 5 judicial fallibility. There has to be an error apparent on the face of the record leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction under Article 137 read with Order 40 Rule 1. There has to be a material error manifest on the face of the record with results in the miscarriage of justice.” 7. This legal position has been followed in the matter of S. Madhusudan v. Narayana Reddy and others reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 where it has been held that a decision can be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. However, an error which is detectable by process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record. All this apart, the order under review was first assailed in Writ Appeal but the writ appeal was later withdrawn seeking liberty to file review petition. 8. Thus examining the present case in the light of the aforesaid settled principles, this Court is of the opinion that a review cannot be founded upon material which was already dealt with by the Writ Court. No factual or legal error which could not be appreciated while deciding the Writ Petition. In aforesaid view of factual and legal position, this Court does not find any force in the arguments advanced by the counsel for the applicant persuading this Court to entertain the Review Petition, the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Resultantly, the Review Petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Jyotishi/Ashish AVANISH JYOTISHI Digitally signed by AVANISH JYOTISHI Date: 2026.07.24 17:37:14 +0530