1 - Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) S/o (Late) Shri Ashok Kale, Aged v. 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, North Block, Central
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18738-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 96 of 2025 1 - Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale (In Person) S/o (Late) Shri Ashok Kale, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Kale Wada, Tilak Nagar, Main Road, Police Station - Civil Lines, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495001 Mob No. 9425530260 ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affair, North Block, Central Secretariat, Nct, New Delhi 110001 2 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Grievances And Pensions, 5th Floor, Sardar Patel Bhavan, New Delhi 110001 3 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Co-Operative, At Office Of Central Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies, New Delhi – 110001 4 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Agriculture, Welfare And Co-Operative, Krishi Bhavan, New Delhi – 110001 5 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, North Block, New Delhi – 110001 6 - Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) 6th Floor, Lodhi Road, Plot No. 5b, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium Marg, Cgo Complex, New Delhi 110003 7 - Supdt. Of Police Central Bureau Of Investigation, Acb, Vip Road, Near Pts Chowk, Post- Mana, Raipur Chhattisgarh 492015 8 - Governor Reserve Bank Of India, R.B.I. Main Building, P.O. Box 901, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 9 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Law And Legislative Dept, Chhattisgarh Government, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 10 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary of Home, Department Of Home, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 11 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Of Finance, Directorate Of Institutional Finance, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 12 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Registrar, Co-Operative Societies, Directorate / Office Of Registrar Co-Operative Societies, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur District Raipur , Chhattisgarh 13 - Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 14 - Inspector General Of Police (Range Bilaspur) Near Nehru Chauk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 15 - Superintendent Of Police Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 16 - Station House Officer Police Of Police Station Tarbahar, Bilaspur City, District - Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Facts
17 - Shri Subrat Roy Sahara Partner Sahara India (Partnership Firm)
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in WPCR No.671 of 2022 by which this Court
Arguments
And Sahara Shri, Sahara India Bhavan, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 18 - Managing Director Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Sahara India, Bhavan, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 19 - Managing Director Star Multipurpose Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, 3rd Floor, Door No. 5-9-15, Infrant Of Telangaa Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad (Telangana) 3 20 - Board Of Directors Star Multipurpose Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, 3rd Floor, Door No. 5-9-15, Infrant Of Telangaa Secretariat, Saifabad, Hyderabad (Telangana) 21 - Board Of Directors Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Sahara India, Bhavan, Kapurthala Complex, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh 22 - Zonal Chief Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited And Star Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Society, C/o Sahara India, Press Club Bhavan, In Fornt Of Medical Complex, Rajabandha Maidan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 23 - Regional Manager Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited And Star Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Society, C/o Sahara India, Aishwarya Bhavan, Near D.P. Vipra Collage, Above Union Bank Of India, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 24 - Sector Manager Sahara Credit Co-Operative Society Limited And Star Multipurpose Credit Cooperative Society, C/o Sahara India, Tiwari Complex, Shiv Talkies Chauk, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner For State For Respondents : Dr. Sachin Ashok Kale, petitioner in person. : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Govt. Advocate. Mr. R.D. Singh, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25-04-2025 The matter has been listed on default. On due consideration, the default pointed out by the Registry is waived out. 1. This petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 24-02-2025 4
Decision
has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 2. The review petitioner in person would submit that the respondents No.17 to 24 has violated the established rules and guidelines for financial transaction issued by the Reserve Bank of India and the Government. From the reply received by the petitioner under RTI the Union of India, clarifies that the Government will not interfere in the business of respondents No.17 to 24. He also submitted a copy of letter of Additional collector Bilaspur to Senior Superintendent of Police Bilaspur for registering the FIR against the private respondents, but the same has also not been considered by this Court by passing the order under review. Further, the business of respondents No.17 to 24 is beyond the capacity of the State police and therefore, he prayed for review of the order dated 24-02-2025 and recalling of the same and restore the WPCR No.671 of 2022 and grant appropriate relief to the petitioner. Therefore, he prayed for review of the order dated 24-02-2025. 3. We have heard the petitioner in person and perused the order under review. 4. Perusal of the order under review would show that it is a biparty order. Grounds raised in the review petition was also there with the petitioner in person when he was being heard at the time of hearing of WPCR No.671 of 2022 and after considering the material produced in the said writ petition this Court has passed the order dated 24-02-2025 dismissing the writ petition holding that the 5 petitioner has no right to claim that the matter be investigated by any particular agency of his choice and also considering that on a complaint made by the petitioner the Police Station Tarbahar has already conducted a preliminary enquiry and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the material produced in the said writ petition, the same was dismissed vide order dated 24-02-2025. The grounds raised in the review petition amounts to rehearing of the writ petition on its merits, which cannot be scope of review petition. 5. At this juncture it would be advantageous to discuss the law with regard to review. 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 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 6 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." 6. In the matter of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa reported in AIR 1960 SC 137, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-8 held as under:- “8. The main question that arises for our consideration in this appeal by special leave granted by this Court is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record so as to enable the superior court to call for the records and quash the order by a writ of certiorari or whether the error, if any, was "a mere error not so apparent on the face of the record", which can only be corrected by an appeal if an appeal lies at all.” 7. 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 of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.” 8. In the matter of M/s Northern India (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governer 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.” 7 9. 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.” 10. In the matter of M/S Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd v. Assam State Electricity Board reported in 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.” 11. In the matter of Beghar Foundation v. K.S. Puttaswamy, (2021) 3 SCC 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “even the change in law of or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” 12. In the present review petition, the petitioner n person has prayed for recall of the order passed by this Court in WPCR No. 671 of 2022. The prayer made by the review petitioner appears to be misconceived. Further, the said WPCR No. 671 of 2022 was decided by this Court on 24-02-2025 after discussing the facts and considering the material annexed with the petition which was 8 available on record. There is no error of law apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 24-02-2025, therefore, the prayer sought for reviewing of the order dated 24-02- 2025 and restoring the WPCR No.671 of 2022 by way of this review petition is not permissible, and in the opinion of this Court, no ground is made out for review. 13. Accordingly, the instant review petition is dismissed. No order as to cost. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil