.^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) REVIEW PETITION N0. c OF 2010 PETITIONER .1^ ^.-' ':>:*• ;A*i y,,., ....o^- .,.,^..'' RESPONDENTS -">* 4. Smt, Moti Bai, Wd/o. Late Bhaiyaram Patanwar, aged about 69 years, Resident of Village- Bitkula, Post Khamhariya, Tahsil and District Bilaspyr(C.G.) State of M.P. (Now C.G.), through : Secretary School Education Department, Vallabh Bhawan, Bhopal (M.P.) Deputy Director of Education, School Education Department, Composite Building, Opposite Collectorate, Bilaspur (M.P.) (Now C.G.) District Education Officer, School Education ^ Department, Tahsil and District Btlaspur (C.G.) Shri T.D. Nawani, Block Education Officer, Block-Pandaria, District Bilaspur (C.G.) APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED —r ^^•.•.".•^.•.i-^SFf^'SSSA'S iB^';i 1- K Petitioner HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0.68 OF 2010 Smt. Moti Bai Versus State of M.P. (now C.G.) & Others Respondente (Application for Review of the order dated 23-4-2007 passed in W.P.(S)No.684of2005) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Gautam Khetrapal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 8th day of October, 2010) I.A.No.1 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the review petition. It is ordered, as prayed for. Accordingly, delay in filing the review petition is condoned. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the word 'may be' used in 3 line of para 3 of the order dated 23-4-2007 passed by this Courtin W.P. (S) No.684 of 2005 [Smt. Motibai v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)} 'while directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the petitioner has been taken as if it was not mandate of the Court. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner could not get the advantage ofthe word 'may be' in the contempt case (Civil) No.195of2009also. 3. Needless to say that even if the word 'may' is used, the word 'may' is mandatory so far as compliance of the order is concerned. Bill:i •.sa8'-;^,^!>i^j;;h;in^S^;y^ffW^S;S,St^'^w;?a^^ K gl. Be that as itmay, the word 'may be' used in 3 line of para 3 of the order dated 23-4-2007 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No.684 of 2005 be read as 'are'. The remaining part of the order dated 23-4-2007 shall remain unaltered. However, time granted to comply with the order passed in W.P. (S) No.684 of 2005 within a period of fhree weeks, shall be applicable from today. Certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties along with the certified copy of the order dated 23-4-2007 passed in W.P.(S)No.684of2005. Accordingly, the review petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Bui fflr •R: »•