-^' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No..r:...f.. .../20IO El APFLICANTS : (RESFONDENT No.lQ) -<a .^^;'7ufe^........ J\-^\v »VB •»'*** (RESPONDENT No.3) 2. (RESPONDENT No.4) Dr.PriyaVerma Aged about 28 Years D/o Shri Ashok Kumar Verma, R/o 54/1367, Near Daulat Estate Dangania, District-Raipiu (C.G.) ;. , Dr. Nu-aj Kumar Gupta, Aged about 27 Years S/o Shri D.S.Gupta, R/o Priyadarshmi Parisar (East), Supela, Bhilai District-Durg (C.G.) 3. Dr. Mukesh Kumar . Kesharwani, Aged about29YeaTsS/oShri Vijay Kesharwani, R/o Village Gorakpur, Tahsil Mungeli, District-Baaspur (C.G.) (RESPONDENT No.8) 4; Dr. Swarna Gupta, Aged about 29 Years D/o ShriR. K. Gupta,R/o Opposite Bukhari Petrol Pump, Lmk Road, Bilaspur District-Bilaspur (C.G.) (RESPONDENT No.ll) 5.^ Dr. Naveen Khubchandani/ ^ Aged about 27 Years S/o Shri P.Ram KhubGhandani, R/o H.NO. 820, NaharPara, Raipur District-Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS: (PETITIONER No.l) 1. Dr. Thandaram Patel Aged about 30 Years S/o Shri Loknath Patel/R/o H.No. 99, KanchanGanga Colony, Phase-II,, Raipur (CG) (PETITIONER No.2) 2.^ Dr. Arun Kumar Kedia, Aged about 30 Years S/o Shri Mohan Lal Kedia, R/o Near Tulsi Hotel, Ramniwas Talkies Chowk, Raigarh, District-Raigarh(C.G.) (RESFONDENTNo.l) (RESPONDENTNo.l) 3. State of Chhaitisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Health, DKS Bhavan, Manfa-alaya Raipur(CG) 4., Director ofMedical Education Chhattisgarh, through its Director Raipur (CG) S^&K^*^ AFPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 14/06/2010 MADE IN W.F. (C) No.^364/2010 ASSED BY HON'BLE DIVISION BENCH-III) HICTI^OURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 59 OF 2010 APPLICANTS RESPONDENTS Dr. PriyaVenna and others Versus Dr. Thandaram Patel and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL. JJ PRESENT:- Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the applicants. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Adv. General for the State. ORAL ORDER (28-6-2010) 1. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 14-6-2010 on behalf of the students'who have already taken admission after partifcipating in the counseling before passing of the order in quesiion. 2. There is no need to review the order dated 14-6-2010 on the ground that this review petitioners have already taken admission after participating in the counseling as the order will not affect those candidates who have already taken admission pr participated in the counseling before the order in question was passed i.e. 14-6-2010. 3^ The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^