1 2026:CGHC:16525-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 97 of 2026 Mangal Prasad Shrivas S/o (Late) Shri R.D. Shrivas Aged About 68 Years R/o Palash 93, Raj Kishore Nagar, Sarkanda, Tah. And District- Bilaspur (C.G.) Mobile No.- 9425543632 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Chief Secrtary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralay, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Cooperative Dept., Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. State of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Indravati Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sunil Tiwari Joint Registrar/registrar, C.G. State Co-Operative Tribunal, Imli Para, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.04.15 17:31:57 +0530 2 For Petitioner : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 10 .04.2026 1. Heard Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State and Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present review petition has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order dated 30.01.2026 passed by this Court in WA No. 96 of 2026, by which this Court had dismissed the writ appeal filed on behalf of the review petitioner herein challenging the order dated 09.12.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No.6011 of 2025. 3. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the review petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2026 passed in WA No.96 of 2026, whereby this Court dismissed the appeal on the ground of lack of locus standi. The dismissal proceeds on an erroneous appreciation of the petitioner’s grievance and overlooks 3 settled principles of law regarding the rights of an aggrieved person. He further submits that the core grievance of the petitioner is not with respect to the merits of the complaint initiated by a third party, but rather pertains to the inaction of the respondent authorities in deciding the representation submitted by the petitioner. The relief sought throughout has consistently been limited to a direction for consideration and disposal of such representation in accordance with law. 4. It is further submitted by the learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner that the findings of this Court, to the effect that the petitioner was not a party to the earlier proceedings, and therefore, lacks locus, are misplaced in the present factual matrix. The petitioner’s claim arises independently from his right as a citizen and as a member of the same service cadre, seeking enforcement of statutory duties upon the respondent authorities. The issue is not a repetition of an earlier complaint, but the failure of the authorities to discharge their obligation of deciding a duly submitted representation. He also submits that the petitioner had submitted a representation highlighting apparent inconsistencies between departmental findings and subsequent actions of the respondents. Despite the representation raising substantial issues, including violations of applicable service rules, no decision has been communicated to the petitioner. Such inaction is arbitrary and contrary to the principles of fairness and administrative accountability. 5. It is further contended by the learned Senior Advocate that it is a settled principle that the State, being a model employer, is under an 4 obligation to consider and respond to representations made by its employees or citizens. The failure to do so amounts to dereliction of duty and denial of fair administrative treatment. The petitioner is not seeking adjudication on disputed facts, but merely a lawful consideration of his representation. He also placed reliance of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. Jiji K.S. v. Shibu K., reported in 2026 Live Law (SC) 212 has reaffirmed that even a person who was not a party to the original proceedings may maintain a challenge if he is adversely affected by the outcome. In the present case, the actions of the respondents, in effectively closing allegations of serious misconduct involving moral turpitude, have a direct bearing on the integrity of the service and the discipline governing similarly placed officers, including the petitioner. He also contended that allegations relating to bigamy constitute a serious violation of the Civil Services (Conduct) Rules and involve moral turpitude. The manner in which such allegations have been dealt with by the respondents undermines the rule of law and sets an adverse precedent within the administrative framework. This directly affects the petitioner’s service environment and his legitimate expectation of equal and fair application of service rules. 6. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, being an officer within the same department, has a legitimate and enforceable interest in ensuring that service norms are uniformly applied. Arbitrary or selective enforcement of such rules results in discrimination and erodes institutional discipline, thereby rendering the petitioner a “person aggrieved” in law. He further stated that 5 respondents’ failure to decide the petitioner’s representation raises substantial questions of law, including whether non-consideration of a representation by a statutory authority amounts to dereliction of duty, and whether such inaction can be justified under the guise of policy discretion. The petitioner has exhausted all available remedies and has approached this Hon’ble Court as a last resort. In the absence of any alternative efficacious remedy, the present review is maintainable and deserves to be considered on merits. 7. Per contra, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State submits that the review petition is wholly misconceived and is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the matter which has already been considered and decided by this Court in writ appeal. It is submitted that the petitioner was admittedly not a party to the original proceedings initiated on the complaint made by another person, and therefore, he has no locus to seek any direction in respect of the same subject matter. It is further submitted that the competent authority had already examined the allegations in detail and passed a reasoned order closing the complaint, and thus, no further direction is warranted. The present review petition does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record nor any new material so as to invoke the review jurisdiction of this Court. 8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 also supports the submissions made on behalf of the State and submits that the petitioner has no enforceable right in the matter. It is contended that the 6 entire attempt of the petitioner is to indirectly challenge proceedings to which he was never a party. It is further submitted that once the competent authority has concluded the proceedings on the same set of allegations, permitting repeated challenges at the instance of third parties would lead to endless litigation and uncertainty. It is thus prayed that the review petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have perused the impugned order under review. 10. Section 114 of the CPC vests power of review in Courts and Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the scope and procedure for filing a review. The same is reproduced hereunder:- “Order 47 Rule 1 CPC: "1. Application for review of judgment- Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important' matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or 7 made the order. (emphasis supplied) (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. Explanation. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.” 11. In the matter of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, reported in 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.” 12. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is evident that the present review petition does not satisfy the parameters laid down under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The petitioner is, in substance, seeking a 8 re-hearing of the matter on merits, which is wholly impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. 13. This Court, while deciding the writ appeal, had categorically held that the petitioner lacked locus standi, as he was neither a party to the original proceedings nor had any direct or legally enforceable right affected by the decision of the competent authority. The said finding is based on due appreciation of facts and settled principles of law and does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference. 14. The contention of the petitioner regarding non-consideration of his representation does not constitute a valid ground for review, particularly when the subject matter of such representation already stands conclusively examined and closed by the competent authority after due inquiry. Entertaining such claims at the instance of a third party would amount to indirectly reopening concluded proceedings, which is impermissible in law and contrary to the principles of finality. 15. The reliance placed on the judgment in Dr. Jiji K.S. (supra) is clearly misplaced and distinguishable on facts. In the said case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recognized the right of a non-party to seek review only where such person demonstrates a direct and substantial legal injury arising from the impugned decision. In the present case, the petitioner has failed to establish any such direct or enforceable injury, and the grievance projected remains in the realm of a general or indirect concern, insufficient to confer the status of a “person aggrieved” in law. 9 16. In view of the settled legal position, it is manifest that the present review petition is nothing, but a disguised attempt to re-argue the matter and reopen issues already adjudicated. The petition does not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence, or any other sufficient reason warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. 17. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed, being wholly frivolous, misconceived, and devoid of any merit, and this Court is further of the considered view that the present petition constitutes a clear abuse of the process of law and wasting the precious time of the Court, thereby warranting the imposition of exemplary costs; in consequence, the petitioner is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today, which upon such deposit shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, District Bilaspur (C.G.) and in the event of default, the said amount shall be recoverable from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, in accordance with law. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan