R.P. Nos. 75 & 84 of 2019 in WP(C) Nos. 26243/2016 & 24833/2016 (Common Order) – Chairman, Sree Krishna College of Pharmacy and Research Centre v. Admission Supervisory Committee for Professional Colleges; Pharmacy Council of India; Kerala State Pharmacy Council; Kerala University of Health Sciences; Other Respondents

R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 1 ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **RP.No. 84 of 2019 IN WP(C). 24833/2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 24833/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS:** **THE CHAIRMAN, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND RESEARCH CENTRE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 502.** **BY ADV. SMT.NISHA GEORGE** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR**| |---|---| ||**PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES,**| ||**TC - 15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS,**| ||**M.P. APPAN ROAD, VAZHUTHACAUD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695 014,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.**| |**2**|**SRI THOMAS VARGHESE,**| ||**S/O. A.T. VARGHESE,**| ||**AMBAZHACHALIL HOUSE,**| ||**VARAPPETTY P.O.,**| ||**KOTHAMANGALAM,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 683 584.**| |**3**|**PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY,**| R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 2 **COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, TEMPLE LANE, KOTLA ROAD, AIWAN-E-GHALIB MARG, P.B.NO.7020, NEW DELHI - 110 002. 4 KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, RED CROSS ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 035. BY ADVS. R3 BY SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN R4 BY SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SC, KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL R1 BY ADV.SMT.MARY BENJAMIN** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH RP.75/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 3 # **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR** **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **MONDAY ,THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1940** **RP.No. 75 of 2019 IN WP(C). 26243/2016** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 26243/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30.10.2018** **REVIEW PETITIONER:** **THE CHAIRMAN, SREE KRISHNA COLLEGE OF PHARMACY AND RESEARCH CENTRE, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 502.** **BY ADVS. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM (SR.) SMT.NISHA GEORGE** R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 4 ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**THOMAS VARGHESE,**| |---|---| ||**S/O. A.T. VARGHESE,**| ||**AMBAZHACHALIL HOUSE,**| ||**VARAPPETTY P.O.,**| ||**KOTHAMANGALAM,**| ||**ERNAKULAM DISTRICT - 686 691.**| |**2**|**THE ADMISSION SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE FOR**| ||**PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES,**| ||**TC - 15/1553-4, PRASANTHI BUILDINGS,**| ||**M.P. APPAN ROAD,**| ||**VAZHUTHACAUD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN.**| |**3**|**PHARMACY COUNCIL OF INDIA,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR CUM SECRETARY,**| ||**COMBINED COUNCIL BUILDING, TEMPLE LANE, KOTLA ROAD,**| ||**AIWAN-E-GHALIB MARG, P.B. NO.7020,**| ||**NEW DELHI - 110 002.**| |**4**|**THE PRESIDENT,**| ||**KERALA STATE PHARMACY COUNCIL,**| ||**RED CROSS ROAD,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**5**|**KERALA UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,**| ||**THRISSUR - 680 596.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SHRI.P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASG OF INDIA**| ||**SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN, SC, KERALA STATE PHARMACY**| ||**COUNCIL**| ||**SRI.P.SREEKUMAR,SC,KERALA UTY.HEALTH AND ALLIED**| ||**SCIENCE**| ||**SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN**| **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25.02.2019, ALONG WITH RP.84/2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 5 ## **COMMON ORDER** ## **Ravikumar, J.** These Review Petitions are filed seeking review of the judgment passed by this Court dated 30.10.2018 in WP(C) Nos.26243 of 2016 & 24833 of 2016 respectively which were disposed of by a common judgment. We have carefully gone through the grounds 'a' and 'b', the only grounds, raised in these Review Petitions for seeking review of the said common judgment. For a proper disposal of these Review Petitions it is only proper to extract those grounds which reads thus :- A. This Hon'ble Court while pronouncing the judgment, recorded that the 2[nd] respondent herein is not legally bound to remit the special fees. This Hon'ble Court arrived at this conclusion on the wrong assumption that the special fees is not reflected in the receipts issued by the college i.e, P24 to P30 in W.P.(C)No.24833 of 2016. This conclusion is erroneous as the special fees stated in Annex-I is exactly the kind of fees reflected in those receipts i.e, the Medical fee, Stationary fee, Statutory fee, R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 6 Internet fee etc. This type of fees are considered as Special fees as per Annex-I. This is an error apparent on the face of the records. B. The Hon'ble Court has taken a view that it is a clear case of hostile discrimination and that there is no justification to deny stipend to the 2[nd] respondent on the ground that he had not remitted the special fees. As seen from Annex-I, all the students who take up the course is bound to remit the special fees. Thus, the view that hostile discrimination was shown against the writ petitioners is upon a flawed finding. Hence, it is highly necessary to review the judgment sought to be reviewed and issue consequential orders accordingly. 2. A perusal of ground 'a' would reveal that the contention in the Review Petitions is that the conclusion arrived at by this court based on Exts P24 to P30 is erroneous. Ground 'b' is to the effect that the conclusion of this court that the review petitions have shown discrimination against the writ petitioners is based upon a flawed finding. Upon perusing the grounds specifically raised on the aforesaid lines as grounds 'a' and 'b', we have no hesitation to hold that these review petitions are nothing but an appeal in disguise. In the contextual situation it is proper to refer to the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:- R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 7 “In the light of the decision of the Apex Court in **Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v Government of Andra Pradesh (AIR 1964 SC 1372)** that, review is, by no means an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for correcting patent errors. In **Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715]** the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code') reiterated that, 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 review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. Later, in **Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2006) 3 SCC 224]** the Apex Court held that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review”. 3. When a judgment is sought to be reviewed, on the ground that the judgment is erroneous, it could not be entertained as it fall outside the scope of review jurisdiction. R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 8 In order to invoke the review jurisdiction the party concerned has to bring out the error apparent on the face of the records. In the light of grounds 'a' and 'b' raised in both the review petitions we are on the considered view that the case of the petitioners is that the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous. The grounds are not sufficient to invoke the review jurisdiction. In the said circumstances, these Review Petitions are dismissed. Sd/- **C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE** Sd/- **V.G.ARUN, JUDGE** cms R.P.Nos.75 & 84 of 2019 9 ## **APPENDIX OF RP 84/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE - 1 TRUE COPY OF THE G.O (RT)NO. 1433/2010/H&FWD DATED 31.03.2010.** **ANNEXURE - II TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO. 540/2010/H & FWD DATED 12.08.2010.** ## **APPENDIX OF RP 75/2019** **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE - I TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(RT) NO. 1433/2010/H&FWD DATED 31.03.2010.** **ANNEXURE - II TRUE COPY OF THE G.O(MS)NO. 540/2010/H&FWD DATED 12.08.2010.** RESPONDENTS EXTS NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE cms