1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.45 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L)NO.1849 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Petitioners V/s. New Era Education Society & Ors. ..... Respondents WITH REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.46 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L)NO.1848 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Petitioners V/s. Late Shri Meghrajaji Ojha Smruti Shikshan Sanstha & Anr. .....Respondents REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.47 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION (L)NO.1826 OF 2008 State of Maharashtra & Ors. .... Petitioners V/s. The Shetkari Shikshan Mandal's Padmabhooshan Vasant Dada Patil Institute of Technology .....Respondents 2 Mr.M.D.Naik, A.G.P., for the Petitioners (Original respondents). Mr.Anil V. Anturkar i/b S.B.Deshmukh, for the respondents (Original Petitioners). CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 5th SEPTEMBER, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. ) 1. Heard. 2. Rule. 3. Since common point is involved in all these review petitions, they are taken together for hearing and final disposal. 4. The question which requires consideration in these review petitions is whether the review petition is maintainable on the ground that after delivering the judgment in respective writ petitions, a contrary view has been expressed by the Full Bench of this Court in connection with the point involved in the petitions. This Court while deciding respective writ petitions, gave various directions and permitted the institutions to enroll the students and the institutions were directed to deposit particular amount in this regard. The concerned institutions were granted approval by A.I.C.T.E. and considering the same, the Division Bench found that even though the petitioners have approached the concerned authority for granting 3 necessary approval and that the procedure took some time and by the time the approval was granted the admission process has already commenced and considering the said aspect, the writ petitions were disposed of by permitting the institutions to enroll the students in view of the approval granted in this behalf. 5. All the three writ petitions were disposed of and the judgment was delivered on the basis of earlier Division Bench judgment. At the time when the aforesaid matters were heard by the Division Bench, it was not pointed out on behalf of the other side that issue in question is pending before the larger bench. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions were disposed of by giving necessary directions. Now the review petitions have been filed on the ground that subsequently Full Bench of this Court has taken contrary view and therefore, these judgments are required to be reviewed. The learned counsel who is appearing for the original-petitioners submitted that the directions given by the Full Bench is not applicable in the present writ petitions. He further submitted that the earlier decision cannot be reviewed on the ground that subsequently contrary view has been taken by Larger Bench in other matters. 6. In this connection, a reference is required to be made to the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haridas Das V/s. Usha 4 Rani Banik (Smt) & Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 78, wherein it was held that 'seeking review on the ground that the review petitioner had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could have argued more forcefully or cited binding precedents to get a favourable judgment, was held to be not permissible. 7. It was held by the Apex Court in Para No.18 of the aforesaid ruling, as under : “It is also pertinent to mention the observations of this Court in Parison Devi v. Sumitri Devi. Relying upon the judgments in Aribam and Meera Bhanja, it was observed as under : (SCC p.719, para 9) 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ' reheard and corrected' . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise' . 8. In this connection, a reference is required to be made to Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, which is as under : “REVIEW 1. Application for review of judgment – (1) Any person 5 considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the appellate court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation . - The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by 6 the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 9. Considering the provisions of Order 47 of CPC, it is clear that on a question of law on which the Judgment has been reversed or modified by subsequent decision in any other case, shall not be a ground for review of such judgment. In our view, if a different view is expressed by higher Court or by the Larger Bench, cannot be a ground for reviewing the earlier judgment. Though of course, Mr.Anturkar, has submitted that the Larger Bench has not taken any contrary view and on the facts of this case, the judgment delivered earlier is required to be sustained. However, it is not necessary to examine this aspect. 10. Mr.Anturkar, the learned Advocate for the respondents further submitted that it is not the ratio of the Full Bench judgment that if the admissions are already given to the students, the same should be cancelled. However, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the matter as the review petition in view of what is stated above, is not maintainable. 11. Considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, in our view, the review petitions are not maintainable and the order in question cannot be 7 reviewed on the ground that subsequently Larger Bench has taken different view in other matter. All the review petitions are therefore, accordingly rejected. 12. At this stage, the learned A.G.P. Mr.Naik submitted that the directions given in the original judgment may be stayed for sometime in order to file Special Leave Petition in the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the order which is subject matter of these review petitions. The said request is opposed by Mr.Anturkar, appearing for the respondent-original petitioners on the ground that the process of admission has already been started. He further submitted that even teachers and other staff have been appointed and it may affect the working of the educational institutions. Considering the said aspect, and the fact that the Division Bench had given directions allowing the respective educational institutions to enroll the students, it would not be just and proper to grant any relief in favour of the petitioner-original respondent. The said prayer therefore stands rejected. 12. In view of what is stated hereinabove, the review petitions stand rejected with no order as to costs. Rule discharged. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )