Recall of judicial orders is limited to cases involving fraud, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularity; conflicts on substantive merits do not justify reopening concluded cases.

ORDER :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking recalling of the order dated 23.01.2026 passed in WPC No. 2554/2024.

2. The main crux of Writ Petition (C) No. 2554/2024 was that Respondent No. 3 Ajit Pujari and Respondent No. 4 Lalita Bhagat exercised and adjudicated the powers of Rent Controller without holding a lawful appointment order as mandatorily required under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Rent Control Act, 2011. The impugned ex-parte eviction order dated 22.06.2022 was passed by Ajit Pujari and the application for setting aside the ex-parte order was rejected by Deputy Collector Lalita Bhagat vide order dated 13.10.2023, both of which were unsuccessfully challenged before the Chhattisgarh Rent Tribunal, Raipur, by order dated 08.05.2024. Thereafter, by order dated 23.01.2026 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 2554/2024, this Hon’ble Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alleged concealment of the appointment order dated 05.06.2024 issued under Section 7 of the Act. However, in paragraph 18 of the said order, this Hon’ble Court held that the Collector, Bilaspur, by a work-distribution order dated 09.12.2021, had validly assigned the charge of Rent Controlling Authority to a Deputy Collector, thereby rejecting the petitioner’s objection regarding lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner submits that if such work-distribution order was sufficient, there was no necessity for issuance of a statutory appointment order dated 05.06.2024 after nearly seven years of the earlier notification dated 27.09.2018, which clearly demonstrates that appointment under Section 7 is mandatory and cannot be substituted by a mere work-distribution order, especially in view of earlier Division Bench judgments of this Hon’ble Court quashing similar orders for want of prior notification.

3. Following prayers have been made in the present MCC application:-

“1) That, this Hon'ble Court Pleased to Allow the Instant Recalling Petition and Pleased to Recall the Order Dated 23.01.2026 Passed in Writ Petition(C) No.2554/2024 wherein Fraud Being Committed with the Court of Law in not Disclosing the Fact Regarding Issuance of the Appointment Order on 05.06.2024 in Favor of Deputy Collector Shiv Kumar Kanwar which amply Shows that Appointment of Rent Controller is Aptly Required & Collector Bilaspur is not Competent to Issue Work Distribution Order/Roster.

2) That this Hon'ble Court may Graciously be pleased to Impose Heavy Cost upon the Respondent State Authorities in View of the Dicta Passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in 'SCIMED OVERSEAS INC. versus BOC INDIA LIMITED AND ORS. (2016) 3 SCC 70.

3) Any other relief, viz Restoration of possession in case which this Hon'ble Court may deem dispossession, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and Proper for the Just Adjudication of the case and protecting Constitutional Rights Petitioners.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Hon’ble Court has inherent power to recall its own judgment where the order has been obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, suppression of material facts, inherent lack of jurisdiction, or mistake of the Court causing prejudice, as authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Budhia Swain & Ors. v. Gopinath Deb & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 396 , Indian Bank v. Satyam Fibres (India) Pvt. Ltd., A.V. Papayya Sastry & Ors. v. G