ORDER : M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J. The petitioner/School made a challenge to the vires of the Puducherry School Education [Amendment] Rules, 2014, issued in G.O.Ms.No.11 of the 1st respondent Department dated 03.03.2014 insofar as they are concerned, by filing a writ of declaration. 2. A Division Bench of this Court [Hon'ble Mr.Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Chief Justice and The Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana], had dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 29.02.2016 and in paragraph No. 33, it observed that “We may, however, state that it may be advisable for the State Government to carry out necessary statutory changes, including the rule to obviate any ambiguity in this behalf without disturbing the present arrangement.” 3. The petitioner made a challenge to the said order by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in SLP.[C].No.12772/2016 and it was disposed of as follows:- “Mr. Basava Prabhu Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner - School submits that though an issue with regard to non-applicability of the rules qua minority non-aided school was raised before the High Court, the same has not been dealt with. Regard being had to the aforesaid submission, we grant liberty to the petitioner to file an application for review within a period of four weeks. Hence, if such an application is filed within the stipulated time, the High Court shall advert to the same on merits and not throw it on the ground of limitation at the threshold. If any finding is rendered in that regard, further liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the order passed in the review, as well as the main order passed in the writ petition. With the aforesaid observations, the special leave petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs.” 4. The petitioner, in pursuant to the liberty granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, while disposing of the Special Leave Petition, had filed the present review application. 5. Mr. T.P. Manoharan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. K.P. Jotheeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/School would contend that though a specific plea has been made as to the non-applicability of the rules to a qua minority unaided institution, the same has not been dealt by the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition and prays for appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, Mr. K.P. Jotheeswaran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/School would contend that though a specific plea has been made as to the non-applicability of the rules to a qua minority unaided institution, the same has not been dealt by the Division Bench while dismissing the writ petition and prays for appropriate orders. 6. Per contra, Mr. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader [Puducherry] appearing for the respondents would contend that the said plea has been considered by the Division Bench and having found no merits, thought fit to dismiss the writ petition and also directed the Union Territory of Puducherry to carry out necessary statutory changes, including the rule to obviate any ambiguity in this behalf without disturbing the present arrangement and steps have already been taken in that regard and as per the procedure, once the amendment is suggested, it should go to the concerned Department in the Union of India and they alone are having the power to make relevant changes in the Statute and prays for some more time. 7. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it in the form of typed set of documents. 8. The primordial submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the vires of the rules though raised, have not been dealt with by the Division Bench, while dismissing the said writ petition. In the considered opinion of the Court, the said submission lacks merit for the reason that the said plea was considered and rejected and it is relevant to extract paragraphs No.29 and 30, which reads thus:- “..... 29. Whichever way we may look it, unless a very restrictive interpretation is given, there is general power to make rules to carry out the provisions of the Act and even clause [v] of sub-section[2] provides for rules for applicability of income derived by way of fee by recognised unaided schools. If we peruse the object of the Act, it is to provide for better organization and development of school education in the Union Territory of Puducherry and “for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. It is not an Act made only to regulate the education provided by aided institutions. Thus, in our view, the provisions for the Act are wide enough to encompass the rule making power qua unaided institutions. 30. It is not an Act made only to regulate the education provided by aided institutions. Thus, in our view, the provisions for the Act are wide enough to encompass the rule making power qua unaided institutions. 30. Thus, a collective reading of the different sub-sections falling in Chapter VI, which refers to admission to school and fees, also seeks to support this interpretation. The section [2] of Section 27 has to be distinguished from the use of the expression recognized school [which would include aided school] in sub-section [3] requiring the full statement of fee levied to be filed. Such an exercise cannot be a mere academic profiteering in education. That is the reason that while dealing with the issue of 'School Fund' in section 28 of the said Act, sub-section [3] stipulates the recognized unaided schools to have a fund, which would be collected with the fee and other charges, and the utilization of the same only for educational purposes.” 9. It is a well settled position of law that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and unless there is an error apparent on the face of it, the order cannot be reviewed. 10. The plea raised by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the Division Bench and as such, this Court is of the considered view that there is no merit in this review petition and hence, deserves dismissal. 11. However, taking into consideration of the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader [Puducherry] appearing for the respondents that necessary proposal is being mooted out for effecting changes in the relevant rules and it is in the Draft stage, this Court is inclined to grant time till 24.10.2017 to do that exercise. 12. The Review Application is dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs. 13. List the matter for reporting compliance on 26.10.2017 and till the, further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned rule as against the petitioner/School is to be kept in abeyance. 14. 12. The Review Application is dismissed subject to the above observation. No costs. 13. List the matter for reporting compliance on 26.10.2017 and till the, further proceedings in pursuant to the impugned rule as against the petitioner/School is to be kept in abeyance. 14. This Court also makes it clear that the petitioner in Ground No.4 of the Review Application, had also stated that the petitioner as an unaided Private Minority School, is entitled to fix fees and other charges on its own and collect the same from the students and only if, it is found on complaints that the said fees and other charges are excessive and amounts to profiteering by it, the Government of Puducherry can regulate the same by directing it to revise and fix a fair and reasonable fees and other charges without profiteering. 15. In the light of the said undertaking given by the petitioner/School, if they violate so, it is always open to the Government of Puducherry to regulate the same by directing the petitioner/Institution to revise and fix reasonable fees and other charges without profiteering. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.