Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dr. Anil Kumawat vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 26 June, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla, Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15681
1 RP-380-2025
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 26th OF JUNE, 2025
REVIEW PETITION No. 380 of 2025
DR. ANIL KUMAWAT
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Shekhar Sharma, learned Senior counsel with Ms.Amrita Joshi,
learned counsel for the petitioner .
Shri Amit Rawal, learned counsel for the respondent/state.
Shri Shantanu Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.
ORDER
Per: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla
The present petition is filed seeking review of the order dated
20.02.2025 passed in WP No.24694/2024. The petitioner has filed a writ
petition seeking following relief :-
(i) To call for the record of impugned inaction of the respondents.
(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent to Notify and include the course of PG. Diploma in
Orthopaedics in the list of recognised courses under the Madhya
Pradesh Medical Council Act, 1987 with effect from 10/09/2022,
the date of completion of the said course by the petitioner.
(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court deem just and
proper in view of aforesaid submissions.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the said petition was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15681
2 RP-380-2025
dismissed holding that the relief sought in the writ petition amounts to
legislation, therefore, no direction can be issued for including the course of
Post Graduate Diploma in Orthopaedics in the list of recognized courses
under the Madhya Pradesh Ayurvigyan Parishad Adhiniyam, 1987 w.e.f
10/9/2022 (the date of completion of the said course by the petitioner).
Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued that certain
documents have not been considered by this Court and thus, there is error
apparent on the face of record and the order impugned needs to be reviewed.
It is argued that this Court held that certain courses have been deleted
from the schedule of the Adhiniyam and once they are deleted, no direction
can be issued to include them in the schedule of the statutory Adhiniyam,
which would amount to legislation in a writ jurisdiction by the High Court.
He argued that some of the deleted courses have again been included in the
schedule of Adhiniyam and further the Government of India have also issued
letters that the courses can be included.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted
that under the garb of review, the petitioner cannot reargue the matter. This
court after hearing the parties and considering all the contentions passed the
impugned order dismissing the petition.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we do not find that the
material which has been referred by the applicant would be a ground to seek
a direction in a writ jurisdiction, to include a particular course in the schedule
of a statute. Inclusion or deletion of a course in a schedule of enactment
would amount to legislate. It is always for the legislation to include or
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:15681
3 RP-380-2025
exclude a course in a statute.
A reference may be made to the judgments passed by the Supreme
Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati reported in 2013 (8) SCC
320, wherein it is held that the review proceedings are not by way of an
appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47
Rule 1 CPC and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma VS. Arbibam Pishak Sharma
reported in 1979 (4) SCC 389, wherein the court clarified the ambit of the
review jurisdiction and held that a decision cannot be reviewed merely
because it is erroneous on merits, since that would fall squarely within the
province of a court exercising appellate jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any error apparent on the face
of record warranting any interference in exercise of Review Petition.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA) (PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Sourabh
