the judgment delivered in Christian Medical College (supra) needs reconsideration. We do not propose to state reasons in detail at this stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect the hearing of the matters. For this purpose we have kept in mind the following observations appearing in the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Sheonandan Paswan (supra) as under: “.... If the Review Bench of the apex court were required to give reasons, the Review Bench would have to discuss the case fully and elaborately and expose what according to it constitutes an error in the reasoning of the Original Bench and this would inevitably result in pre-judgment of the case and prejudice its re-hearing. A reasoned order allowing a review petition and setting aside the order sought to be reviewed would, even before the re- hearing of the case, dictate the direction of the re-hearing and such direction, whether of binding or of persuasive value, would conceivably in most cases adversely affect the losing party at the re-hearing of the case. We are therefore of the view that the Review Bench in the present case could not be faulted for not giving reasons for allowing the Review Petition and directing re-hearing of the appeal. It is significant to note that all the three Judges of the Review Bench were unanimous in taking the view that “any decision of the facts and circumstances which … constitutes errors apparent on the face of record and my reasons for the findings that these facts and circumstances constitute errors apparent on the face of record resulting in the success of the review petition, may have the possibility of prejudicing the appeal which as a result of my decision has to be re-heard....” Suffice it is to mention that the majority view has not taken into consideration some binding precedents and more particularly, we find that there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before pronouncement of the judgment.

                                                                  REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                  REVIEW PETITION (C)NOS.2159-2268 OF 2013
                                     AND
                  REVIEW PETITION (C) NOS.2048-2157 OF 2013
                                     IN
              TRANSFERRED CASE (C) NOS.98-105, 107-108,110-139,
             142, 144-145 OF 2012 & 1-5, 7-25, 28-49, 53, 58-73,
                           75-76 & 107-108 OF 2013


     MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA                  ... PETITIONER(S)

                                 VS.

     CHRISTIAN MEDICAL COLLEGE VELLORE & ORS.  ... RESPONDENT(S)

                                    WITH

              R.P.(C) NO.1956 OF 2013 IN T.C.(C) NO.101 OF 2012


                           O R D E R


These review petitions have been filed against the judgment  of  this  Court
dated 18th July, 2013 passed in Christian Medical  College  Vellore  &  Ors.
Vs. Union of India &  Ors.  reported  in  (2014)  2  SCC  305.   The  review
petitions were placed before a Three-Judge Bench and notices were issued  on
23rd October, 2013 and thereafter, it was  brought  to  the  notice  of  the
Bench that Civil Appeal No.4060/2009  and  connected  matters  involving  an
identical issue, had been referred to a Five-Judge Bench.   Accordingly,  on
21st January, 2016, these review petitions were ordered to  be  heard  by  a
Five-Judge Bench.


On 21st January, 2016, notice was ordered to be served  through  substituted
service and in pursuance of the said order, necessary publication  was  made
in two newspapers and proof  thereof  was  filed  on  15th  February,  2016.
Thereafter, we have heard the matters.
Civil Appeal No.4060/2009 and its connected  matters  have  been  heard  and
order has been reserved on 16th March, 2016.
We have  heard  the  counsel  on  either  side  at  great  length  and  also
considered the various judgments cited  by  them,  which  include  judgments
cited by the non-applicants on the scope of  review  in  Kamlesh  Verma  vs.
Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC  320,  Union  of  India  vs.  Namit  Sharma
(2013) 10 SCC 359 and Sheonandan  Paswan  vs.  State  of  Bihar  and  others
(1987) 1 SCC 288.
After giving our thoughtful and due consideration, we are of the  view  that
the  judgment  delivered  in  Christian  Medical   College   (supra)   needs
reconsideration.   We do not propose to state  reasons  in  detail  at  this
stage so as to see that it may not prejudicially affect the hearing  of  the
matters.  For this purpose we have kept in mind the  following  observations
appearing in the Constitution Bench judgment of  this  Court  in  Sheonandan
Paswan (supra) as under:



“.... If the Review Bench of the apex court were required to  give  reasons,
the Review Bench would have to discuss the case fully  and  elaborately  and
expose what according to it constitutes an error in  the  reasoning  of  the
Original Bench and this would inevitably result in pre-judgment of the  case
and prejudice its re-hearing.  A reasoned order allowing a  review  petition
and setting aside the order sought to be reviewed would, even before the re-
hearing of the case, dictate  the  direction  of  the  re-hearing  and  such
direction, whether of binding or of persuasive value, would  conceivably  in
most cases adversely affect the losing party at the re-hearing of the  case.
 We are therefore of the view that the Review  Bench  in  the  present  case
could not be  faulted  for  not  giving  reasons  for  allowing  the  Review
Petition and directing re-hearing of the appeal.  It is significant to  note
that all the three Judges of the Review Bench were unanimous in  taking  the
view that “any decision of the facts and circumstances which  …  constitutes
errors apparent on the face of record and my reasons for the  findings  that
these facts and circumstances constitute errors  apparent  on  the  face  of
record resulting in the  success  of  the  review  petition,  may  have  the
possibility of prejudicing the appeal which as a result of my  decision  has
to be re-heard....”


Suffice it is  to  mention  that  the  majority  view  has  not  taken  into
consideration some binding precedents and more particularly,  we  find  that
there was no discussion among the members of the Bench before  pronouncement
of the judgment.





We, therefore, allow these review petitions and recall  the  judgment  dated
18th July, 2013 and direct that the matters be  heard  afresh.   The  review
petitions stand disposed of as allowed.


                                                            ..............J.
                                                              [ANIL R. DAVE]



                                                             .............J.
                                                                [A.K. SIKRI]



                                                            ..............J.
                                                              [R.K. AGRAWAL]



                                                       ...................J.
                                                         [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL]



                                                             .............J.
                                                               [R.BANUMATHI]
New Delhi;
April 11, 2016.