Patna High Court
Pappu Kumar YadavversusThe Indian Oil Corporation
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Holding
The court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was shown, and therefore the review application was dismissed.
Summary
The petitioner, Pappu Kumar Yadav, sought a review of a 2021 judgment that dismissed his writ application challenging the withdrawal of a Letter of Intent (LoI) for a rural LPG distributorship by Indian Oil Corporation (IOC). The petitioner argued that the IOC’s reliance on clause 5.4 (and clauses 9, 9.1, 9.3) of the LoI was erroneous and that the review court should set aside the earlier decision. The court examined the grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and relevant Supreme Court precedents on "error apparent on the face of the record". It found that the petitioner had not identified any such patent error and that the review sought was essentially a rehearing of the merits, which is not permissible. Consequently, the review application was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the reliance on clause 5.4 of the Letter of Intent in cancelling the LoI was an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Whether the petitioner satisfied the statutory grounds for a review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.
- Whether a review application can be used to rehear the merits of the original writ petition.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII Rule 1
- the Act — s. Section 22(3)(f)
Subjects
- review
- writ jurisdiction
- Letter of Intent
- LPG distributorship
- error apparent on the face of the record
- Civil Procedure Code
- Order XLVII Rule 1
- Indian Oil Corporation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.200 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5228 of 2020
======================================================
Pappu Kumar Yadav Son of Dharmanath Yadav, resident of Village- Mairy
Sudama, P.S.- Bhagwanpur Hat, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Indian Oil Corporation through its Chairman, G-9, Ali Aval Jang Mall,
Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051.
2. The Deputy General Manager, (LPG-S), Patna Area Office, Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd., 1st Floor, Shahi Bhavan, Exhibition Road, Patna- 1.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Praveen Prabhakar, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Ankit Katriar, Advocate
Mr. Kanishka Shankar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 15-01-2026
1. Heard Mr. Mahesh Narayan Parbat, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ankit Katriar, learned counsel
for the Indian Oil Corporation (herein after referred to as the
‘IOC’).
2. The instant application has been filed praying for
review of the judgment dated 25.1.2021 passed in CWJC
no.5228 of 2020, whereby the writ application filed by the
petitioner/review applicant was dismissed.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
2/11
3. The petitioner filed CWJC no.5228 of 2020 for
quashing the letter dated 3.2.2020 of the IOC whereby the Letter
of Intent (LoI) issued in favour of the petitioner for running the
rural LPG distributorship in Morakhas in the district of Siwan
was withdrawn. Further prayer was made by the writ petitioner
to allow him to run the rural LPG distributorship as the
petitioner had already invested huge amount and made
necessary preparations for the same.
4. The relevant facts in brief are that the petitioner
was one of the applicants for grant of LPG distributorship in the
category of OBC against an advertisement published on
17/18.6.2017 by the IOC. In the draw of lots, the petitioner was
selected and a LoI was issued on 27.6.2019. Subsequent thereto
a registered deed of agreement was entered into between the
petitioner on one hand and Raju Kumar Singh and Basant
Mishra on the other on 31.7.2019. This was without prior
permission of the IOC and in clear violation of clause 5.4 of the
LoI dated 27.6.2019. Taking this into consideration, the LoI
issued in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the IOC
which was challenged in the writ application. Not finding any
merit in the writ application filed by the petitioner, CWJC
no.5228 of 2020 was dismissed by judgment dated 25.1.2021. It
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
3/11
is the review of this judgment which is sought for in the instant
application.
5. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the petitioner preferred LPA no.173 of
2021, which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the
petitioner to file a petition for review of the impugned judgment
dated 25.1.2021. It is further submitted that clause 5.4 of the LoI
relied upon in dismissing the writ application of the petitioner is
an error committed and the said provision is not applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, error has also
been committed in relying upon clauses 9, 9.1 and 9.3 in
rejecting the writ application. The conclusion arrived at in the
judgment under review is clearly erroneous and as such the
order be reviewed and the prayer made in the writ application be
allowed.
6. The application is opposed by learned counsel
appearing for the IOC. It is submitted that the petitioner has not
been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the
judgment dated 25.1.2021 dismissing the writ application. The
petitioner has not been able to make out any case for review of
the judgment and as such the application be dismissed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
4/11
the material on record.
8. The writ application (CWJC no.5228 of 2020) filed
by the petitioner came to be dismissed by judgment dated
25.1.2021. Relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced
herein below for ready reference :-
“By clause 5.4 of the L.O.I. the
petitioner/allottee has categorically been barred
from inducting anyone as a partner or making
any change in constitution of the proposed
distributorship, by inducting a partner without
prior approval from the I.O.C Ltd.. So far as the
facts of the instant case are concerned, it is
admitted that the petitioner entered into a
registered partnership agreement with two other
persons, the partnership being effective from
31.7.2019. This was in clear violation of clause
5.4 of the L.O.I dated 27.6.2019. Further from
perusal of the legal notices dated 9.9.2019,
29.10.2019 and 4.1.2020, the contents thereof
clearly show that the dispute between the
partners had arisen as the newly inducted
partners were demanding share to the extent of
75% to 80% of the profit from the petitioner, and
it was for this reason that the same could not
continue. The partnership was not being
dissolved for reason of the same being in
violation of the terms of the L.O.I.
The contents of the LOI shows that it
only talks about the intent of the IOC Ltd. to
offer to the petitioner the LPG distributorship.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
5/11
The LOI also contained a number of conditions
which had to be satisfied before the issuance of
Letter of Appointment. The LOI also provided
that the IOC Ltd. would not be held responsible
for investment which may be made by the
petitioner in construction of the godown without
having a proper approach road. It also provided
that the LOI may be withdrawn in case any fact
in the application is found to have been
suppressed, misrepresented, incorrect or false.
After receipt of the LOI dated 27.6.2019, the
petitioner having entered into a registered
partnership agreement on 31.7.2019 without
prior permission of the IOC Ltd for the purposes
of running the LPG dealership, shows that the
petitioner clearly violated the terms of the LOI
and consequentially the action of the IOC Ltd. in
withdrawing the Letter of Intent dated 27.6.2019
cannot be said to be illegal. Thus the Court finds
no merit in the writ application nor any illegality
in the order impugned dated 3.2.2020.
The writ application stands
dismissed.”
9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
West Bengal & Ors. vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr.; (2008) 8
SCC 612, referring to the provision of review under Order
XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) and a number
of other judgments held in paragraph no.35, as follows :-
“35. The principles which can be
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
6/11
culled out from the abovenoted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review
its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the
Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil
court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule
1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its
decision on either of the grounds enumerated in
Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
(iii) The expression "any other
sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1
has to be interpreted in the light of other
specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident
and which can be discovered by a long process of
reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent
on the face of record justifying exercise of power
under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision
cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of
power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be
reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of
subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or
larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior
court.
(vii) While considering an application
for review, the tribunal must confine its
adjudication with reference to material which
was available at the time of initial decision. The
happening of some subsequent event or a
development cannot be taken note of for
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
7/11
declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by
an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or
important matter or evidence is not sufficient
ground for review. The party seeking review has
also to show that such matter or evidence was
not within its knowledge and even after the
exercise of due diligence, the same could not be
produced before the court/tribunal earlier.
10. It would be appropriate to reproduce Order XLVII
Rule 1 of the CPC which provides the grounds for filing a
review application. The same reads as follows :-
“1. Application for review of
judgment.-(1) 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
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
8/11
or order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment to the Court which passed
the decree or made the order.
(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 applies 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 case of Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri
Devi & Ors.; (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court
observed that it is well settled that review proceedings have to
be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order XLVII Rule
1 of the CPC. It further observed that even if the statement was
wrong, the same would not amount to be an ‘error apparent on
the face of the record’. It held as follows :-
“7. It is well settled that review
proceedings have to be strictly confined to the
ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
9/11
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. this
Court opined:
“what, however, we are now
concerned with is whether the statement in
the order of September 1959 that the case
did not involve any substantial question of
law is an 'error apparent on the face of the
record'). The fact that on the earlier
occasion the Court held on an identical state
of facts that a substantial question of law
arose would not per se be conclusive, for the
earlier order itself might be erroneous.
Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it
would not follow that it was an 'error
apparent on the face of the record', for there
is a distinction which is real, though it might
not always be capable of exposition,
between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterised as
vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by
no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected,
but lies only for patent error.”
12. As to what would be construed to be error
apparent on the face of the record came to be decided by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa
Tirumale; AIR 1960 SC 137, where it held as follows :-
“17.........An error which has to be
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
10/11
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.
As the above discussion of the rival contentions
show the alleged error in the present case is far
from self-evident and if it can be established, it
has to be established by lengthy and complicated
arguments. We do not think such an error can be
cured by a writ of certiorari according to the
rule governing the powers of the superior court
to issue such a writ. .…”
13. So far as the facts of the instant case is concerned,
as submitted by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
petitioner, the contention has been that the reliance placed on
clause 5.4 of the LoI in dismissing the writ application is an
error committed as the said provision is not applicable in the
facts and circumstances of the case. Further submission is to the
effect that error has also been committed in placing reliance on
clauses 9, 9.1, 9.3 and in the conclusion arrived at in the
judgment under review.
14. In the opinion of the Court, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to point
out any error apparent on the face of the record.
15. In the garb of a review application what the
petitioner is seeking is rehearing of the writ application on
Patna High Court C. REV. No.200 of 2022 dt.15-01-2026
11/11
merits which is not permissible.
16. The Court finds no merit in the instant review
application and the same is dismissed.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 10.10.2025
Uploading Date 15.01.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…