Review applications cannot substitute appeals and must adhere to strict limitations, focusing solely on apparent errors without introducing new arguments or counsel.

JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Ms. Saima Khan, learned counsel for the review applicant and Sri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Sri Alok Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel for the State of U.P. representing the respondents no. 1, 2 & 3.

2. By means of instant application, the applicant is seeking review of a judgment and order dated 07.01.2026 passed by this Court dismissing Writ- C No. 41 of 2026, which was filed by the review applicant/petitioner challenging the validity of an order dated 21.05.2019 passed by the Sub- Divisional Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar canceling the fair price shop license of the petitioner, which order had been affirmed by means of an order dated 08.12.2025 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya in appeal filed by the petitioner under Para 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities(Regulation of Sale and Distribution) Order, 2016.

3. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition had been filed through Sri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Advocate and the aforesaid counsel had advances submissions in support of the writ petition. The review application has been filed by another counsel Ms. Saima Khan. He has submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Poornachandran & Another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others: (1996) 6 SCC 755 and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr: ( 1997) 9 SCC 736, a review petition cannot be filed through a counsel who was not a counsel in the writ petition. .

4. The learned counsel for the review applicant has also placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the Case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another: (1997) 9 SCC 736 .

5. In M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N.:, (1996) 6 SCC 755 , a Review Petition No. 2670 of 1996 in CA No. 1867 of 1992, had been dismissed by h olding as under: -

"The record of the appeal indicates that Shri Sudarsh Menon was the Advocate-on-Record when the appeal was heard and decided on merits. The review petition has been filed by Shri Prabir Chowdhury who was neither an arguing counsel when the appeal was heard nor was he present at the time of arguments. It is unknown on what basis he has written the grounds in the review petition as if it is a rehearing of an appeal against our order. He did not confine to the scope of review. It would not be in the interest of the profession to permit such practice. That apart, he has not obtained 'No Objection Certificate' from the Advocate-on- Record in the appeal, in spite of the fact that Registry had informed him of the requirement for doing so. Filing of the 'No Objection Certificate' would be the basis for him to come on record. Otherwise, the Advocate-on-Record is answerable to the Court. The failure to obtain the 'No Objection Certificate' from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the review petition. Even otherwise, the review petition has no merits. It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits."

(Emphasis added)

6. Thereafter another application for clarification of the order, an application for review whereof had already been rejected vide judgment in the case of M. Poornachandran v. State of T.N. (supra) was filed through another Advocate. The Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the application by a judgment in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr: (1997) 9 SCC 736 by observing that: -

"1. It is a sad spectacle that a new practice unbecoming and not worthy of or conducive to the profession is cropping up. Mr Mariaputh