- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 331 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, VIJAYA NAGAR, RAMANAGARA – 562 159. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) AND: 1. M/S.REDDY GUN HOUSE, REGISTERED COMPANY ACT 2013, OFFICE AT NO.21, GROUND FLOOR, TKM MAIN ROAD, MEDANAHALLI, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA – 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ARPITHA. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. S.PRAVEEN, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025 PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW AND RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2960/2025(GM-RES). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP appearing for the petitioners, Sri.S.Praveen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record. 2. The Writ Petition No.2960/2025 comes to be disposed by an order dated 06.03.2025. The State has preferred the Review Petition on the score that there is an error apparent on the face of the record while disposing the subject petition and certain material could not be placed. According to the learned AGA, appearing for the State, he would submit that as on the date of grant of license, the building was not in existence. Therefore, the license could not be directed to be renewed without the building being in place. Learned counsel - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025 seeks to impress upon the fact that the sanction plan was on 8.7.2015 by the Gram Panchayat but the Bidadi Town Municipal Council has come with effect from 10.09.2015, which is two months after the grant of license for renewal. Learned counsel submits that the completion certificate ought to have been placed within the time limit prescribed under the Act and the completion certificate having not been placed, it cannot be that the petitioner's license could have been renewed without the building being in place. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner Mr.Praveen S, would submit that it is only with regard to this grant of license, the State is wanting to project the illegality but the Bidadi Town Municipal Council has been collecting rents, taxes, whatever all statutory payments of all the shops that are in the buildings including this. Therefore, it cannot be projected that the building is not in place and the plan sanction was not available in a case for grant of a fresh license for selling arms. This Court after a detailed order, has allowed the petition. Except the aforesaid clarification that there is no warrant of interference even in Review, further hearing of the matter even - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025 on the issue of whether license was directed to be granted appropriately or not, would amount to re-hearing the matter all over again or sitting in appeal over the order that is already passed by this Court which cannot be done in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA vs. MAYAWATI, 2013 (8) SCC 320, which reads as follows: "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. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to 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. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025 (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.” (Emphasis supplied) 4. In the light of the said circumstance, finding no warrant, except the aforesaid observation, the Review Petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21