M/S Sanyeeji Sipat Ali and Anr. Vs Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Apdcl) and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

M/S Sanyeeji Sipat Ali and Anr. Vs Assam Power Distribution Co. Ltd. (Apdcl) and 6 Ors. — Gauhati HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the finding in the order dated 11.02.2026 that the petitioners opted to wait for the outcome of the appellate authority's decision on remand before filing the appeal constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting recall/review. +1 more

Court's answer

An error apparent on the face of the record means an error that is self-evident, requiring no process of reasoning to detect; an error that is not self-evident and requires reasoning to detect cannot be so described.

Ratio / Principle

Clarifying the order dated 11.02.2026: the Court declined to condone the delay not principally on the ground that the petitioner awaited the statutory appellate authority's result on remand; rather, the Single Judge's direction impugned in the connected appeal had already been given effect to.

Key takeaways

A review application is maintainable on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced when the decree/order was made; or on account of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or for any other sufficient reason.obiter¶4
While exercising review jurisdiction, a court cannot appreciate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion, even when two views are possible.obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Gauhati High Court (Division Bench: Hon'ble the Chief Justice Mr. Ashutosh Kumar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arun Dev Choudhury; order authored by AD Choudhury, J), order dated 18-03-2026 in Review.Pet./50/2026 (linked I.A.(Civil)/27/2026), filed by M/s Sanyeeji (printed variously as 'Sipat Ali'/'Ispat') represented by its Director Shri Dhiraj Kumar Jaiswal versus Assam Power Distribution Co Ltd (APDCL) and 6 others. The applicants sought recall/review of the order dated 11.02.2026 dismissing their condonation-of-delay application in IA(Civil) 27/2026, contending (i) that the finding therein — that the petitioners waited for the appellate authority's post-remand decision before filing the writ appeal — was an error apparent on the face of the record since the appeal pre-dated the review hearing of the order dated 31.12.2025, and (ii) that APDCL's counsel suppressed this fact. The Court reiterated that a review lies only on discovery of new matter/evidence not available despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or an analogous sufficient reason; that an 'error apparent' must be self-evident, requiring no process of reasoning to detect; and that review jurisdiction cannot be used to appreciate evidence afresh. Clarifying the earlier order, the Court explained that delay was refused not principally because the petitioners awaited the appellate outcome, but because the Single Judge's direction had been given effect to and the appellate authority on remand had decided the issue and ordered fresh reassessment, leaving the applicants free to assail that decision elsewhere. Holding that the review grounds, even if correct, were neither self-evident errors nor destructive of the soundness of the order dated 11.02.2026, the Bench found no case for review and dismissed the petition.

Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010042902026

2026:GAU-AS:3883-

DB

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

Case No. : Review.Pet./50/2026

M/S SANYEEJI SIPAT ALI AND ANR

HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 9, BRINDABAN MARKET, S.J. ROAD, ATHGAON, GUWAHATI 781001, ASSAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

2: SHRI DHIRAJ KUMAR JAISWAL S/O SHRI J.P. JAISWAL DIRECTOR OF APPELLANT NO 1 R/O HOUSE NO 29A SAL SARNAM BILPAR CHABNIPOOL REHABARI GUWHATI 781008 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

VERSUS

ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD (APDCL) AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, BIJULI BHAWAN, PALTAN BAZAR, GUWAHATI 781001

2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR

Page No.# 2/7

GUWAHATI 781001

4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (TI) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI) APDCL LAR BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 6:THE AREA MANAGER IRCA II APDCL JALUKBARI GUWAHATI 781012 7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GE II APDCL GARIGAON JALUKBARI

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S P ROY, MR. R CHOUDHURY,MS. V RAI,JYOTISH DAS

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, APDCL,

Linked Case : I.A.(Civil)/27/2026

M/S SANYEEJI ISPAT LTD. AND ANR HAVING ITS REGD. OFFICE AND PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS AT 9 BRINDABAN MARKET S.J. ROAD ATHGAON GUWAHATI-781001 ASSAM.REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR

2: SHRI DHIRAJ KUMAR JAISWAL DIRECTOR OF APPLICANT NO. 1 R/O HOUSE NO. 29A SAI SARNAM

Page No.# 3/7

BILPAR CHABNIPOOL REHABARI GUWAHATI - 781008 DIST. KAMRUP (M) ASSAM VERSUS ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD APDCL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001 2:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (COMMERCIAL) APDCL BIJULIBHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI - 781001 3:THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (D) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 4:THE GENERAL MANAGER (TI) APDCL BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 5:THE DEPUTY MANAGER (TI) APDCL LAR BIJULI BHAWAN PALTAN BAZAR GUWAHATI 781001 6:THE AREA MANAGER IRCA II APDCL JALUKBARI GUWAHATI 781012 7:THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER GE II APDCL GARIGAON JALUKBARI ------------

Page No.# 4/7

Advocate for : MR. S P ROY Advocate for : SC

APDCL appearing for ASSAM POWER DISTRIBUTION CO LTD APDCL

BEFORE

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

18-03-2026

(AD Choudhury, J)

The present application is filed seeking a recall/review of the order dated 11.02.2026 passed in IA (Civil) 27/2026, by which the application for condonation of delay was dismissed.

The present review application is filed primarily on the ground that the finding of this Bench in order dated 11.02.2026 that the petitioners opted to wait for the outcome of the decision of the appellate authority on remand before filing the appeal before this Court constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record for the reason that the writ appeal was actually filed long before the review hearing of the order dated 31.12.2025.

Secondly, it is urged that the learned counsel for the APDCL suppressed the aforesaid material fact and asserted that the petitioner participated in the review proceeding and only thereafter challenged the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

Page No.# 5/7

The law is well settled that a review application is maintainable on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, even after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed, or the order was made. Secondly, such a review application shall be maintainable on account of such mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.

The material error, to exercise the power of review, must be manifest on the face of the order and would result in a miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness .

The error apparent on the face of the record shall mean an error that is self-evident and no process of reasoning is required to detect such error. Therefore, when an error is not self-evident and is required to be detected by the process of reasoning, such error cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record.

It is also equally well settled that while exercising review jurisdiction, a Court cannot appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion, even when two views are possible in a matter.

It is well settled that any other sufficient reasons shall mean “a reason sufficient on the grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.

Now coming to the case in hand, this court declined to condoned the delay not principally on the ground that the

Page No.# 6/7

petitioner awaited for the result of statutory Appellate authority on remand by the learned single judge, rather this court has specifically recorded that the direction issued by the learned Single Judge impugned in the connected appeal has already been given effect to; the appellate authority on remand based on the order of the learned Single Judge has also decided the issue and directed the assessing authority for a fresh reassessment exercise and therefore, the applicants shall be still at liberty to assail such decision of the appellate authority before the appropriate forum.

This court further recorded that the ground of delay pleaded in the application reveals that the applicants' grievance revolves around the jurisdiction of the Regulatory Appellate Authority to entertain a review petition, which cannot be permitted in a condonation petition. Similar arguments on merit have been made repeated orally in the present proceeding.

Thirdly, it was recorded that the applicants have miserably failed to give any justification in the condonation petition for the delay in filing the appeal, except by questioning the jurisdiction of the appellate authority to entertain a review petition and the correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge relegating the respondents to seek a review of the order under challenge in the said writ petition, after interfering with the same.

Thus, this court found that the applicants had failed to show

Page No.# 7/7

sufficient cause for condonation of the delay.

The grounds sought in the present review petition, even if assumed to be correct, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record, and such alleged incorrect findings have no bearing on the final conclusion and determination made in our order dated 11.02.2026, passed in IA(Civil) 27/2026 nor does undermine its soundness

Accordingly, this court is of the view that no case for review is made out and therefore, the present case stands dismissed.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Comparing Assistant