< IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) WRIT PETITIONfC) N0. ^^-^OF 2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ?.^>Zo/ .•" ^" _(y.^^/ ^w / ^JV ff^ ^ / / f/s Rajeev Kumar Dubey Son of Shri Laxminarayan Dubey, aged about 24 years, Resident of Bajrang Sweets, Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.)/ through the Registrar. x 2. The Registrar Examination, Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.). 3. The Principal, Chhadami Lal Chouksey, Homeopathic Medicat College, Bilaspur (C.G.). 4. State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Secretary, Department of Higher Education^, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 5. Union of India, through : the - Secretary, Department of Higher Education; New Delhi. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION 10 No. 323 of2010 PETmONER : RajeevKumarDubey. VERSUS RE8PONDENT8 : Gum Ghasidas Central University & Others. WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Affnihotri, J. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate fortihe petitioner. Slm Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 1 & 2. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent No. 4. Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Assistant 8.0. for the respondent No. 5. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 07m day of July, 2010) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, on instmctions, submits that tiie petitioner does not want to press any other relief, except that the tme copy of answer books ofthi'ee subjects viz. Surgeiy, Third Paper, Organ of Medicines and Materia Medica, may be supplied to the petitioner. Shri Shrivastava, leai<ned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and 2 submits that if a proper application is made to the concemed authority, the copy ofthe answer books, as aforestated, may be supplied to the petitioner as there is no restriction in supply ofanswer books. He iurther submits that the true copies ofthe answer books may be obtained only when an application is made under the provisions of Riglit to Infomiation Act, 2005. The above submission ofthe leamed counsel for the respondent No. 1 and 2 seems to be baseless as the application is always made to an officer of the institute who has been declared as a Public InfoiTnation OflRcer, who also happens to be an employee ofthe said Institute. In that case., even ifthe petitioner applies under the provisions ofthe Act, 2005, or he makes a separate application to the competent authority, it does not make any difference. Accordingly, the respondent No. 1 and 2 are directed to supply tme copy of answer books, as aforestated, on an application being made by the petitioner, as eai'ly as possible, preferably within a period offour weeks fromthe date ofreceipt ofthe application. The writ petition is disposed of witli the above observations and directions. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit