1 CGHC010316012026 2026:CGHC:41115 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 250 of 2026 1 - Shailendra Dubey S/o Shri Triyugi Prasad Dubey Aged About 41 Years Working As Deputy Registrar, Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary, Sector- 19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - State Information Commissioner, Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, Sector-19, North Block, Nawa Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chunni Lal Tandon, Assistant Registrar, Bastar Vishwavidyalaya, Dharampura, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar Chhattisgarh, District- Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Applicant :- Ms. Pratibha Sahu, Advocate 2 For Respondents No. 1 & 2 :- Mr. Shyam Sunder Lal Tekchandani, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 22.09.2026 1. By the present Review Petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 05.08.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.4111 of 2022, Shailendra Dubey v. Chhattisgarh State Information Commission and Others. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order under review suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly with regard to the penalty imposed under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is submitted that although this Court reduced the quantum of penalty from Rs.9,250/- to Rs.5,000/-, the finding sustaining the imposition of penalty has continued to operate against the petitioner. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and having carefully considered the grounds raised in the Review Petition, this Court finds that the petitioner essentially seeks reconsideration and re-appreciation of the findings recorded in the order dated 05.08.2026. The grounds urged in the Review Petition substantially assail the correctness of the conclusions already arrived at by this Court and seek a re-examination of the matter 3 on merits. Such exercise, in substance, would amount to an appeal against the order under review. 4. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because a party is of the view that the findings recorded by the Court are erroneous or that another view is possible. An error apparent on the face of the record must be one which is self-evident and does not require a process of elaborate reasoning, re-appreciation of evidence or re- argument on the merits of the matter. The power of review cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction for correcting every alleged error or for substituting one possible view by another. 5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a catena of decisions, including Devaraju Pillai v. Sellayya Pillai, (1987) 1 SCC 61; Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995) 1 SCC 170; Avijit Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Terai Tea Co. and others, (1996) 10 SCC 174; Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650; Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi and others, (2013) 2 SCC 1; and Sasi (D) through LRS. v. Aravindakshan Nair and others, (2017) 4 SCC 692, has reiterated the settled parameters governing exercise of review jurisdiction and has held that review cannot be sought for re- hearing or re-appreciation of the matter as an appellate court. 6. Tested on the aforesaid parameters, this Court finds that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner discloses any error apparent 4 on the face of the record in the order dated 05.08.2026. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate that any material fact or binding legal provision was inadvertently overlooked, nor has any patent error or manifest mistake apparent from the record been pointed out which would warrant exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely contending that the order under review is not in accordance with law, or that the findings recorded therein are erroneous, cannot by itself constitute a sufficient ground for review. 7. The grounds raised in the Review Petition, if considered, would necessarily require this Court to reconsider the very findings which have already been recorded after consideration of the matter. Such re-appraisal or re-appreciation is beyond the permissible scope of review jurisdiction and would amount to exercising appellate jurisdiction, which is impermissible in law. 8. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the Review Petition does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground falling within the settled parameters of review jurisdiction warranting interference with the order dated 05.08.2026. No ground is, therefore, made out for review of the order under challenge. 9. Consequently, the Review Petition is dismissed. 10. No order as to costs. 5 11. However, dismissal of the present Review Petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such appropriate remedy as may otherwise be available to him before the competent/appellate forum, in accordance with law. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha