Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel ... 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:21244
1 RP-1323-2025
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. 1323 of 2025
SARDAR VALLABH BHAI PATEL MAHAVIDHYALAYA RUN BY
PRIME EDUCATION SOCIETY SENDHWA THROUGH SECRETARY
OF
Versus
RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA STATE
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Veer Kumar Jain, Senior Counsel with Shri Vaibhav Jain, counsel
for the petitioner.
Shri Vikas Jaiswal, counsel for 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. 17681/2024 and other connected
petitioners whereby the writ petition was dismissed.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in some other decided case,
Spl.Leave to Appeal No. 18036/205 was preferred against the said order. The
SLP was withdrawn with liberty to file review. The order passed in
Spl.Leave to Appeal is reproduced as under :-
"1. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we are of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21244
2 RP-1323-2025
opinion that if at all the contentions urged as to no decision having
been taken by the University is correct, it has to be first urged
before the High Court in a properly filed review petition.
2. The petitioner's counsel understanding our disinclination sought
withdrawal of the special leave petition with liberty to file a
review before the High Court.
3. We grant such liberty, however, making it clear that the
decision as to whether a review is maintainable or not is left to the
High Court.
4. The petitioner would be entitled to challenge the order
impugned herein if the review is declined."
3. Upon perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the Apex Court, it is
clear that a submission was made before the Apex Court that the University
has not taken any decision in the matter.
4. Counsel for the petitioner in the present review submitted that it is
not one of the ground in the present petition. He argued that respondents be
directed to give affiliation for the MBA course for the academic session
2025-26.
5. Today in another review being R.P.No. 1156/2025 arising out of
same order has already been dismissed. The petitioner cannot be permitted to
re-argue the entire matter.
6. 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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:21244
3 RP-1323-2025
and State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and Another,
(2008) 8 SCC 612].
7. 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.
8. 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."
9. 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
