Madhya Pradesh High Court
Oxford International College Of ... vs Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki ... on 7 August, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21214
1 RP-1156-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
ON THE 7 th OF AUGUST, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 1156 of 2025
OXFORD INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE OF MANAGEMENT RUN BY SHRI
SHANTANU VIDHYAPEETH SOCIETY SAMITI THROUGH S
Versus
RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA STATE
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, Senior Advocate with Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned
counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, counsel for the respondent No.1.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated
24.06.2025 passed in writ petition No. 21740/2024 and other connected petitioners
whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
The applicant who was writ petitioner filed the writ petition challenging the
decision of the respondent No.1/Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya
whereby they declared that they will not grant/renew the affiliation for the MBA
course to any College for the academic session 2025-26.
3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, two issues were framed for
consideration :
(i) whether the decision of the University Co-ordinatation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21214
2 RP-1156-2025
Committee is binding on the respondent No.1/Rajiv Gandhi
Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya ?
(ii) whether the decision taken by the respondent NO.1/University
not to grant affiliation to the aforesaid courses is arbitrary and
unreasonable ?
4. This Court held that decision of the University is not binding on the
respondent No.1/Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya but it has got
persuasive value. The Court further considered that University has taken the
decision independently as after the decision by the University Co-ordinatation
Committee the issue was placed for consideration before the Acedemic council and
then the Executive Council of the University. The decision was also approved by
the Chancellor of the University. The Court further held that there was no
arbitrariness in the decision of the respondent No.1/University not to grant
affiliation to the aforesaid course.
5. Counsel for the petitioner in the review petition vehementally argued that
this Court has not taken into consideration the submission of counsel for the
petitioner that MBA in Pharmaceutical and Integrated courses is offered only
by Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya and not by any other local
University. On the said count the review is sought.
6. On perusal of paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13 of the order, we find that the
Court has taken into consideration the aforesaid contention. The petitioner cannot
be permitted to re-argue the entire matter.
7. It is well settled in law that in the guise of review, rehearing is not
permissible. In order to seek review the petitioner has to demonstrate that the order
suffers from error apparent on the face of record. The Court while deciding the
review petition cannot sit in appeal over the judgment passed by it. The petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21214
3 RP-1156-2025
cannot be given liberty to readdress the Court on merits because it is not an appeal
in disguise where the judgment is to be considered on merits.[See: J . R .
Raghupathy Vs. State of A.P. (AIR 1988 SC 1681), S.Bagirathi Ammal Vs. Palani
Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464 and State of West Bengal and
Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another, (2008) 8 SCC 612].
8. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bairathi Amaal Vs. Plni Roman (2009)
10 SCC 464 has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that
the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is
apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and
searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous.
9. In another case, the Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs.
Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 has held that "a party cannot be permitted to
argue de novo in the garb of review."
10. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the
case of S. Bairathi Amaal and State of West Bengal (supra), there is no error
apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.
The review petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to cost.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
MK
