JUDGMENT : SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel for the review applicant and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Alok Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3. 2. By means of instant application, the applicant is seeking review of a judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by this Court dismissing Writ- C No. 41 of 2026, which was filed by the review applicant/petitioner challenging the validity of an order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar canceling the fair price shop license of the petitioner, which order had been affirmed by means of an order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in appeal filed by the petitioner under Para 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities(Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016. 3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition had been filed through Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate and the aforesaid counsel had advances submissions in support of the writ petition. The review application has been filed by another counsel Ms. Saima Khan. He has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Poornachandran & Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others : (1996) 6 SCC 755 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr : ( 1997) 9 SCC 736, a review petition cannot be filed through a counsel who was not a counsel in the writ petition. . 4. The learned counsel for the review applicant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another : (1997) 9 SCC 736 . 5. In M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N. :, (1996) 6 SCC 755 , a Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, had been dismissed by h olding as under: - "The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition 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. The review petition 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 not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, 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." (Emphasis added) 6. Thereafter another application for clarification of the order, an application for review whereof had already been rejected vide judgment in the case of M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N. (supra) was filed through another Advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the application by a judgment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr : (1997) 9 SCC 736 by observing that: - " 1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or 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 24-4-1996. Yet another advocate, Mr S.U.K. Sagar, has now 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 note that the court spends valuable time in deciding a case. 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 note that the 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. (Emphasis added) 7. The learned counsel for the review applicant has submitted that she has obtained a no objection certificate from the Counsel who had filed and argued the Writ Petition and, therefore, she has the right to file the review application. She has further submitted that even in T.N. Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has carved out an exception against the prohibition against filing of review petitions for the " rare cases where error of law or fact is apparent on the record". She has submitted that the present case is one of those rare cases as it suffers from a patent error of fact. The petitioner was held prima facie guilty in a preliminary inquiry, thereafter, an opportunity to show cause was given to him and without any evidence having been led to prove the charges against the petitioner, he has been held guilty. She has submitted that as the order impugned in the writ petition suffers from perversity which renders it unsustainable in law, the present case falls in the category of those rare cases, in which a review of the order is permitted. 8. The aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is based on a misreading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down is, that a review application cannot be filed in a routine manner and it can only be filed in rare cases, where an error of law or fact is apparent on the face of the record. What the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down is, that a review application cannot be filed in a routine manner and it can only be filed in rare cases, where an error of law or fact is apparent on the face of the record. The second principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that review application can be filed by the Counsel who had advanced submissions in the original proceedings, as any other Counsel will not be in a position to point out what submissions had been advanced before the Court at the time of passing of the order sought to be reviewed. A review petition is not a rehearing or an appeal against the original order and, therefore, new grounds cannot be taken in a review petition. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not held that where the order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, a review application can be filed through a new Counsel also. A review application can only be filed where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and even where there is an error which is apparent on the face of record, the review application should be filed by the Counsel who had advanced submissions in the original proceedings. Therefore, the submission of the learned Counsel for the review applicant is misconceived and the same is rejected. 9. The learned counsel for the review applicant next submitted that the provision for filing applications for review before this High Court is contained in Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, which reads as follows: - "12. Application for review. :- An application for the review of a Judgment shall be presented to the Registrar General, who shall endorse thereon the date when it is presented and lay the same as early as possible before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgment was delivered along with an office report as to limitation and sufficiency of courtfees. Application for review. :- An application for the review of a Judgment shall be presented to the Registrar General, who shall endorse thereon the date when it is presented and lay the same as early as possible before the Judge or Judges by whom such judgment was delivered along with an office report as to limitation and sufficiency of courtfees. If such Judge or Judges or any one or more of such Judges be no longer attached to the court, the application shall laid before the Chief Justice who shall having regard to the provisions of Rule 5 of Order XL VII of the Code, nominate a Bench for the hearing of such applications : Provided that an application for the review of a judgment of one Judge who is precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the presentation of the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, shall be heard or disposed of by a single Judge, and that an application for the review of a judgment of two or more Judges, any one or more of whom is or are precluded by absence or other cause for a period of six months next after the presentation of the application from considering the decree or order to which the application refers, shall be heard or disposed of by a Bench consisting of the same or a greater number of Judges. Explanation:- For the purposes of this rule the expression 'no longer attached to the Court' shall be deemed to include absence from the permanent place of sitting on account of the directions given under rule 17 of this Chapter, illness or any other cause.." 10. The learned Counsel for the applicant has submitted that the aforesaid Rule permits hearing of a review application by a Judge other then the Judge who had decided the original proceedings, in case of non-availability of the Judge who had decided the original proceedings. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner the same analogy should be applied to the counsel also and if the earlier counsel is not available for filing review application or advancing submissions, another counsel should be permitted to file a review application and advance submissions in support thereof. 11. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner the same analogy should be applied to the counsel also and if the earlier counsel is not available for filing review application or advancing submissions, another counsel should be permitted to file a review application and advance submissions in support thereof. 11. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the review applicant as firstly, in case the judge who had decided the earlier original proceedings is not attached to the Court, the review applicant can not be left remedy-less and in that case the Rule rightly provides that the review application shall be heard and disposed of by another Bench. It is not the case that the counsel who had filed the writ petition and had advanced submissions in support thereof, is not practicing before this Court any more and it is not the case that the counsel is not available for filing the review petition and advancing submissions in support thereof. The only thing is that the applicant/petitioner has chosen to avail the services of another counsel. Therefore the analogy of Chapter V Rule 12 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, as pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, would not apply to the present case. 12. Therefore, I find force in the submission of Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, that the review application filed through another Counsel cannot be entertained. 13. The order sought to be reviewed is a detailed order, wherein this Court has noted that the order dated 21.12.2019 shows that during inquiry, statements of 40 persons have been recorded who pointed out the illegalities committed by the petitioner in distribution of essential commodities. The Village Pradhan gave written statement stating that the essential commodities for the month of October 2018 had not been distributed till 27.10.2018. After a complaint was made by the card holders, the petitioner made inadequate distribution on 28/29.10.2018. He has charged excessive amount from the card holders. After recording of statements of card holders, the petitioner's shop was inspected. The stock register was not available in the shop. The petitioner's brother who was present at the shop at the time of inspection was directed to produce the stock register the following day, but the petitioner did not do so. After recording of statements of card holders, the petitioner's shop was inspected. The stock register was not available in the shop. The petitioner's brother who was present at the shop at the time of inspection was directed to produce the stock register the following day, but the petitioner did not do so. It was also found during inspection that the sign board, stock board, rate board, notice board and toll free number of the department was not displayed at the shop. The petitioner was not using electronic weighing scale or standard weights and weighing scale certified by the legal meteorology department. The petitioner's license was suspended by means of order dated 06.11.2018. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.10.2018 along with a copy of the stock register. He stated that he could not distribute the essential commodities because of some criminal actions committed on 30.09.2018 in which he and his family members had suffered injuries and were under going treatment and he had remained admitted to hospital since 30.09.2018 to 09.10.2018. He had started distribution through an assistant since 12.10.2018. It is recorded in the impugned order that the petitioner's explanation and the evidence adduced by him, including the distribution register, was examined by the Regional Food Officer who found that the distribution register had not been properly filled. Some pages thereof contained signature of large number of persons than the persons whose names were mentioned and some other pages mentioned lesser number of signatures than the names of persons mentioned. The distribution register had not been verified by the competent officer from which it appeared that the petitioner had fabricated the register. 14. This Court has also taken into consideration that Para 7 (8) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016 merely provides that an inquiry regarding irregularities in distribution by a fair price shop owner shall be conducted by the designation officer or by the District Magistrate. After inquiry, if the license of fair price shop owner is suspended along with a show cause notice by the competent authority, then the reply/ explanation of show cause notice by fair price shop owners will be examined by an officer at least one rank above the inquiry officer. If the preliminary inquiry had been conducted by a district level officer, then the explanation by fair price shop owners shall be examined by another district level officer. If the preliminary inquiry had been conducted by a district level officer, then the explanation by fair price shop owners shall be examined by another district level officer. It does not provide for recording of statements of witnesses and giving opportunity of their cross-examination by the shop holder. 15. This Court has already examined the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order suffers from perversity and after a detailed discussion, has concluded in para 8 of the judgment dated 07.01.2026 that "the S.D.M. arrived at a finding of guilt of the petitioner after taking into consideration the entire record and the order cannot be said to be perverse. The findings of S.D.M. has been affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner, Food during appeal." 16. Now by seeking a review on the ground that the order impugned in the Writ Petition suffers from perversity, the review applicant is seeking a rehearing of the matter, which is not permissible in law. 17. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. : AIR 1964 SC 1372 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - "7….A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out…." 18. The aforesaid principle has consistently been followed till date, and it has recently been followed in State of W.B. v. Jai Hind (P) Ltd. : 2026 SCC OnLine SC 157. 19. In Malleeswari v. K. Suguna : 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that: - " 15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: 15.1 The 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 of CPC. 15.2 Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. 15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors 16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted. 17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted. 17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows: 17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed. 17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. 17.3 Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason' means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories. 18. Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction..." 20. Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a decision in Shankar Prasad v. State of U.P. : 2021 SCC OnLine All 1852, wherein a Division Bench of this Court examined the following two questions referred to it: - "(a) What are the parameters of principles of natural justice to be followed in inquiries conducted by Licensing Authority on complaints of irregularities in the distribution of Essential Commodities? (b) Whether the observation made in Paragraph 35 of the Full Bench decision in Puran Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 2 UPLBEC 947 regarding holding of "full fledged enquiry" after suspension of license can be read in such a manner as would require the whole gamut of steps required in disciplinary proceedings of Government servants to be followed?" The Division Bench gave the following answers to the questions: - (i) It is held that the parameters for an enquiry to be conducted against the licensee for the irregularities committed by the licensee in terms of the Distribution of Essential Commodities is on broad principles of natural justice where the competent authority shall provide a show cause notice to the licensee indicating the violations and irregularities committed by the licensee with sufficient particularity to enable him to respond to the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing, the decision can be taken by the competent authority by a reasoned and a speaking order. The enquiry envisaged is summary in nature and does not entail a detailed hearing, akin to a departmental enquiry (ii) It is held that the words "full fledged enquiry" as used by the Full Bench of this Court in the decision of Puran Singh (supra) has to be read in context with paras 4 and 5 of the Government Order of July 2004 and the scheme therein which merely requires adherence to the principles of natural justice and does not provide for a detailed enquiry involving various stages and steps as are required to be met in disciplinary enquiry against a government servant." (Emphasis added) 21. The order sought to be reviewed is in conformity with the aforesaid principles laid down by the Division Bench in Shankar Prasad v. State of U.P. (supra) and it does not suffer from any error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record. The Review Application lacks merit and the same is dismissed.