The court condoned the delay in filing the review application due to insufficient notice to the petitioner regarding the original order.

ORDER

This Writ Miscellaneous Petition has been filed, seeking condonation of delay of

92 days in preferring the review, seeking to recall and review the order passed in W.P.No.37762 of 2025 dated 03.10.2025.

2.I have heard Mr.Subramanian Vaidyanathan, learned counsel for the petitioner/review applicant and Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent writ petitioner.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that though an application has been filed, seeking condonation of delay of 92 days in filing the review, the delay would not even arise for the reason that the order in the writ petition came to be passed, without even notice being ordered to the petitioner and further, if the relevant dates are taken into consideration, the delay would only be 11 days. He would therefore pray for the delay being condoned.

4.Per contra, Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner would state that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause. Inviting my attention to the notice issued by the writ petitioner through counsel, the learned counsel would state that the said notice was served on the petitioner even on 09.10.2025, even thereafter, the petitioner has been callous and did not take any steps to comply with the orders passed by this Court in the writ petition. He would further state that only after filing of the contempt petition, the review application has been filed with inordinate delay. He would also contend that the petitioner has also filed a writ appeal, along with the delay and the delay is yet to be condoned by the Hon’ble Division Bench.

5.In such circumstances, Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the 1^st respondent/writ petitioner would state that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary order of condonation of delay. He would also rely on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others , reported in CDJ 2023 SC 152, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court cannot consider a review, as if it was an appeal and such a procedure was wholly impermissible and an erroneous order can only be subjected to an appeal before the higher forum and not be subject matter of review under Order 47 of CPC.

6.I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side.

7.It is not in dispute that by order dated 03.10.2025, the writ petition was disposed of, with a direction to the 1^st respondent to release a fresh schedule for counseling for admission of MDS course, in order to fill up vacancies under the Government quota. Time line of four weeks was also fixed for the reschedule process to be complied and thereafter, the counselling to be concluded by end of November 2025. However, as rightly pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the 1^st respondent against, whom the direction was issued was not even put on notice, on the date on which, I ordered the writ petition. Notice was taken by the Special Government Pleader, who appeared only for the respondents 4 and 5.

8.Taking note of the no objection expressed by the Special Government Pleader, I proceeded to pass the order, based on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Era Lucknow Medical College and Hospital Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 388, and also the Rajasthan High Court in Federation of Private Medical and Dental College of Rajasthan, through its Authorised Signatory, Puneet Makhjia Vs. Chairman, Neet PG Medical and Dental Admission/Counselling Board – 2025 and others, in S.B.Civil W.P.No.17900 of 2025, whe