Review Petition No. 467 of 2024 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - RP No. 467 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REVIEW PETITION NO.467 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. MS. SHEETHAL .P D/O. MR. P. ASHOKAN, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT KALLANCHHIRA, NEAR LV TEMPLE, KANHANGAD, HOSDURG, KASARGOD, KERALA – 671315. 2. MS. SHIFINA O., D/O. SALEEM, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT OLIYIL, KATTILLANGADI TANUR, MALAPPURAM TIRUR, KERALA – 676302. 3. MS. ASNIYA SHIRIN, D/O. MR. ABOOBACKER A.N., AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT PANICHIKATHEL PURANG, MARANCHERI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA – 679584. 4. MS. AYISHATH SABEEHA, D/O. A. ABBAS, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, PERMANENT ADDRESS AT - 2 - RP No. 467 of 2024 2-64, ADKAR, JALSOOR JAISUR, DAKSHIN KANNADA, KARNATAKA – 574239. PETITIONERS 1 TO 4 ARE STUDYING BDS COURSE AT KVG DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, KURUNJIBAG SULLIA, DAKSHINA KANNADA – 574327. ... PETITIONERS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI AJAY N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 2. 3. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE MEDICAL EDUCATION, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION (DME), ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560009, REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR. THE KARNATAKA EXAMINATION AUTHORITY 18TH CROSS, SAMPIGE ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560012. REPRESENTED BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR. THE DENTAL COUNCIL OF INDIA J6MP+G22, AIWAN E-GALIB MARG, KOTLA ROAD, TEMPLE LANE, NEW DELHI-110002 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 5. DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF HEALTH SERVICES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, J668+85M, NIRMAN BHAWAN, MAULANA AZAD ROAD, NEW DELHI-110011, - 3 - RP No. 467 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR GENERAL. 6. 7. THE KARNATAKA STATE DENTAL COUNCIL NO.143, 5TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560018, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. THE RAJIV GANDHI UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, 4TH T.BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560011, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 8. KVG DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL KURUNJIBAGH, VIDYANAGAR, SULLIA-574327, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL DR. MOKSHA NAYAK. (SRI VIKAS RAJIPURA, AGA R-1 & R-2) ... RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, R/W SECTION 114 OF HIGH COURT RULES PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORD OF WRIT PETITION NO.12946/2022; REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.12946/2022 DATED 07.09.2022; CONSEQUENTLY, PASS SUCH OTHER APPROPRAITE ORDERS BY
Decision
RESTORING AND ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND FOR DAY, RESERVED ON PRONOUNCEMENT OF K.S.HEMALEKHA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 13/12/2024, JUDGMENT COMING THIS ON CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA - 4 - RP No. 467 of 2024 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA) This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 07.09.2022 passed in W.P. No.12946/2022, whereby, the petition preferred by the petitioners along with the KVG Dental College and Hospital was dismissed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. A perusal of the material on record would indicate that the writ petition was filed by Sri Krishna .T, learned counsel representing the review petitioners and the present review petition is filed by another counsel who has not appeared for the petitioners in the writ petition. 4. The Apex Court has heavily come down on such type of practice in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vs. N. Raju Reddiar and another1 and on the sole ground the review petition needs to be dismissed as not maintainable. 1 1997 (9) SCC 736 - 5 - RP No. 467 of 2024 5. However, since the petitioners are students and to see that on technicalities the petitioners are not deprived to be heard on merits, we have perused the material on record. The review petitioners had approached this Court along with the college seeking to direct the Karnataka Examination Authority (‘KEA’ for short) to open the Website / Portal to facilitate the review petitioners to get themselves registered in the website / portal alleging that the website / portal was not accessible. The petitioners’ request for enrolling / registering themselves has been negated by this Court on 07.09.2022 in W.P. No.12946/2022 on the ground that the review petitioners did not avail the said opportunity to register themselves with the KEA at any point of time and right to ask for registration or to open the website is available only to students who are qualified in the NEET and petitioner-students did not avail the opportunity of getting admitted with the college within the last date prescribed for admission. 6. This being the state of affairs, the review petitioners again approached this Court in the writ petition in - 6 - RP No. 467 of 2024 WP No.24752/2022 seeking a writ of mandamus directing the University to issue hall ticket and permit the petitioners to take up First year BDS examination of December, 2021 as per the time table issued by the respondent-University and to approve the admission of the petitioners to the BDS course admitted by the respondent-institution for the academic year 2021-2022. The writ petition was dismissed on the ground that when the petitioners request for enrolling / registering themselves has been negatived by this Court by then order dated 07.09.2022 in W.P. No.12946/2022, the college in question has misled and in fact defrauded the students by keeping them in dark of the aforesaid order and they continued to represent the students who have been enrolled in the respective courses and issued necessary identity cards. The learned single Judge directed the Registrar of the University to take stringent action as permissible under the law against respondent No.3-college therein (KVG Dental College and Hospital). 7. Aggrieved, review petitioners preferred writ appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. On the submission made by the review petitioners, the writ appeal - 7 - RP No. 467 of 2024 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file a review application. That is how the review petition has been filed. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the similarly placed students who were denied hall tickets had preferred W.P. Nos.24638/2022 and 24750/2022 which were allowed and the respondents therein were directed to approve and admit the petitioners on its rolls and issue hall tickets to the petitioners to take up the examination and the petitioners being the similarly placed, however due to the order in WP No.12496/2022, the petitioners have been denied the benefit. In the aforesaid petitions, the petitioner- students were declared eligible by NEET, paid the necessary fees and complied with all the necessary documentation, under such circumstances, the learned single judge directed to approve and admit the petitioner-student therein. In the instant case, the admission of the review petitioners was without enrolling / registering themselves in the website / portal of KEA and the college, without there being any right to have enrolled the students into their respective courses, issued identity cards for 2021-2025. The review petitioners have not made any ground to be entitled for any relief based - 8 - RP No. 467 of 2024 on the identical circumstances, there is no error apparent on the face of the record, neither any illegality nor infirmity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC as held in various judgments by the Apex Court and this Court including (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat2 (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan3, (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy4 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer5, wherein it is held as under:- “16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 2 Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 DD 03.11.2020 3 (2023) SCC Online SC 185 4 Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 DD 18.08.2022 5 2023 SCC Online SC 1406 - 9 - RP No. 467 of 2024 (iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long- drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.” - 10 - RP No. 467 of 2024 9. Upon consideration of the entire oral and documentary evidence, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order and the order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 41 Rule 1 CPC and this Court pass the following: ORDER The review petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE AT CT-PA