1 CGHC010337702026 2026:CGHC:41704-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 312 of 2026 M/s 02 Planetarium Through Its Proprietor, Smt. Uma Mishra, W/o Mahesh Prasad Mishra, Aged About 68 Years, Address 1st Floor, 82, Jairam Complex, Great Eastern Raod, Sharda Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Collector, District Surguja Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Public Education, Directorate Of Public Instructions, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - District Education Officer Ambikapur, Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner(s) : None For State : Mr. D. R. Minj, Dy. Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi, Judge Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 25/09/2026 1. The present review petition has been filed by the petitioner for Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.09.26 15:42:30 +0530 2 reviewing the order dated 15.07.2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026, whereby the writ petition filed by the review petitioner was dismissed. 2. The review petitioner had filed W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026 challenging the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the District Collector, Surguja and the consequential communication dated 23.03.2026 issued by the District Education Officer, Ambikapur, whereby the respondents declined to proceed with the implementation of the Work Order dated 27.12.2023 relating to installation of a Mobile Planetarium in District Surguja and directed refund of the Earnest Money Deposit. The said orders were challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner, after being declared successful (L-1) bidder pursuant to the Expression of Interest dated 20.09.2023, had been issued the Work Order dated 27.12.2023 and had thereafter approached the respondents on 05.01.2024 and 29.01.2024 for delivery, installation and training of the customized mobile planetarium system, but the respondents refused to accept the delivery. The petitioner further contended that the respondents could not cancel the Work Order on the ground of non-completion of the work, particularly when Clause 4 of the Agreement required commencement of the work within one month from the date of the Work Order. The writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 15.07.2026, holding that the controversy essentially pertained to enforcement of reciprocal contractual rights and obligations arising out of a concluded non-statutory contract and involved disputed questions of fact, which could not appropriately be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction 3 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The order dated 15.07.2026, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026, was challenged by filing the present Review Petition. 3. No one appeared for the review petitioner in repeated calls. Therefore, we proceeded to decide the review petition on the basis of the pleading and documents annexed with the review petition. 4. From perusal of the record, it transpires that W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026 was argued before this Court by Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. The present Review Petition No. 312 of 2026 has been filed by the petitioner through learned counsel Mr. Faiz Kazi. 5. In the matter of “Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v. N. Raju Reddiar and Another” 1997 (9) SCC 736, the Hon'ble Supreme Court deprecated the practice of filing review petition by engaging a different counsel. In para 1 of its judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “1. It is a sad spectacle that new practice unbecoming of worthy and conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr. Mariaputham, Advocate-on-Record had filed vakalatnama for the petitioner-respondent when the special leave petition was filed. After the matter was disposed of, Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocate had filed a petition for review. That was also dismissed by this Court on April 24, 1996. Yet another advocate, Mr. S.U.K. Sagar, has now 4 been engaged to file the present application styled as "application for clarification", on the specious plea that the order is not clear and unambiguous. When an appeal/special leave petition is dismissed, except in rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record, no review can be filed; that too by the advocate on record who neither appeared nor was party in the main case. It is salutary to not that court spends valuable time in deciding a case. Review petition is not, and should not be, an attempt for hearing the matter again on merits. Unfortunately, it has become, in recent time, a practice to file such review petitions as a routine; that too, with change of counsel, without obtaining consent of the advocate on record at earlier stage. This is not conducive to healthy practice of the Bar which has the responsibility to maintain the salutary practice of profession. In Review Petition No.2670/96 in CA No.1867/92, a Bench of three Judges to which one of us, K. Ramaswamy,J., was a member, has held as under: "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was heard and decided on merits. The Review Petition 5 has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the Review Petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would be not in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That part, he has not obtained " No Objection Certificate" from the Advocate-on-Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the "No Objection Certificate" would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits, It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition". 6 6. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the matter of ”Vinita Bhatnagar v. Union of India” 2018 SCC Online Allahabad 6411 followed the N. Raju Reddiar case (supra) and has held that:- “1. …….. It is well-settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a Counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same Counsel who has earlier argued the matter. In T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of arguing the matter by one Counsel and review by another Counsel and has observed that the review application ought to have been filed by the, same Counsel who has argued the matter.” 7. In another matter of “Jai Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, through its Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Planning and others” 2023 SCC Online Allahabad 4490, the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has held in para 20 and 21 that:- “20. In Review Petition Defective No. 281 of 2008 titled U.P. State Agro Industrial Corporation Ltd. v. Anil Kumar Mishra decided on 30.03.2012, this Court dismissed a review petition filed by a subsequently engaged counsel. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is reproduced below:— 7 “Shri Umesh Chandra, learned senior Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that in view of law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736, the review petition is not maintainable as Shri Manoj Singh, Advocate who has filed the review petition was neither appeared as a counsel on behalf of the review petitioner nor argued on their behalf in the writ petition. So, the review petition is not maintainable, liable to be dismissed on the said ground. * * * Applying the abovesaid settled proposition of law in the present case, I don't find any good ground and reason taken by review petitioner in the matter in question for review of judgment and order dated 3.12.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 1827 (SS) of 1997, and also in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar, (1997) 9 SCC 736, same is liable to be 8 dismissed. 21. The aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Vinita Bhatnagar v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine All 6411, in which this Court held that:— “It is well-settled that a review application ought not to have been filed by a Counsel who has not argued the matter but ought to have been filed by the same Counsel who has earlier argued the matter. In T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar (1997) 9 SCC 736 the Apex Court has deprecated the practice of arguing the matter by one Counsel and review by another Counsel and has observed that the review application ought to have been filed by the, same Counsel who has argued the matter.” 8. In the present case also, the review petitioner had initially engaged Mr. Shalvik Tiwari, learned counsel, to pursue the writ petition before this Court. The writ petition was heard and argued by the said counsel, whereas the present Review Petition has been filed through another counsel, Mr. Faiz Kazi. The counsel appearing in the present review petition was not the arguing counsel when W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026 9 was heard and decided by this Court. The grounds now urged in the review petition relate to the very issues which were available for consideration at the time of hearing of the writ petition. A change of counsel cannot, by itself, furnish a ground for review or permit a party to seek rehearing of the matter on grounds which could have been urged before the Court at the time of original hearing. It would not be in the interest of justice to permit such practice. 9. The another aspect of the matter is that, against the order dated 15.07.2026 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026, the review petitioner has not preferred any Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has directly approached this Court by filing the present review petition. Therefore, the question of raising the grounds urged in the present review petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court does not arise. The review petitioner has sought review of the order dated 15.07.2026 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly with regard to the alleged inconsistency between Clause 4 of the Agreement dated 27.12.2023, as reproduced in the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the District Collector, Surguja, and the ground of non-completion of work relied upon for cancellation of the Work Order. The aforesaid ground essentially seeks reconsideration of the contractual terms and the reasons assigned by the authority, which had already formed part of the controversy considered while deciding the writ petition. Thus, the ground raised in the present review petition does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 10 10. From perusal of the order dated 15.07.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026, it is quite vivid that this Court had considered the grievance of the petitioner with regard to the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the District Collector, Surguja and the consequential communication dated 23.03.2026 issued by the District Education Officer, Ambikapur. This Court had specifically considered the contention of the petitioner that the respondents had refused to accept delivery of the customized mobile planetarium system and that the petitioner was ready and willing to perform its contractual obligations. This Court, after considering the rival submissions, had held that the controversy essentially pertained to enforcement of reciprocal contractual rights and obligations arising out of a concluded non- statutory contract and involved disputed questions of fact, including whether the petitioner had duly tendered performance, whether the respondents had refused to accept delivery, whether time was the essence of the contract and whether either party had committed breach of the contractual obligations. Thus, the ground now raised by the review petitioner with regard to the interpretation of Clause 4 of the Agreement and the alleged inconsistency in the reason assigned by the District Collector seeks reconsideration of the contractual dispute already considered by this Court and does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the ground raised by the review petitioner for review of the order dated 15.07.2026 is misconceived. 11. The scope of review jurisdiction is no longer res-integra and it is well settled through a catena of decisions that, an application for review 11 cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. In the garb of the review application, rehearing of the appeal on merits cannot be allowed. 12. In the matter of “Tungabhadra Industries Limited v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh” AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.” 13. In the matter of “M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi” 1980 (2) SCC 167, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "A plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace" 14. In the matter of “Sajjan Singh and others vs. State of Rajasthan and others” AIR 1965 SC 845. the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:- "the parties are not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by this Court merely for purpose for review and fresh decision of the case. The normal principle that judgments pronounced by this Court would be final, cannot be ignored and unless considerations 12 of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so." 15. In the matter of “Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others” 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-9 held as under:- "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise." 16. In the matter of “M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board” 2020 (2) SCC 677, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the petition and held that:- "The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided." 13 17. In the matter of “Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati” 2013 (8) SCC 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in para 19 that:- “19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.” 18. From the aforesaid discussion and in view of the fact that the grounds raised in the present Review Petition seek reconsideration of the contractual dispute already considered by this Court and do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the present Review Petition is misconceived and does not warrant interference with the order dated 15.07.2026 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2290 of 2026. The writ petition was decided after hearing the parties and considering the rival submissions, and the present review petition essentially seeks rehearing of the matter on the interpretation of the contractual terms and the reasons assigned by the District Collector. Further, the fact that the present review petition has been filed through a counsel other than the counsel who argued the writ petition, by itself, cannot constitute a ground for review. In the circumstances of the case, no error apparent on the face 14 of the record is made out. Consequently, the Review Petition is liable to be dismissed. 19. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Judge Alok