COURTFeESDGEfim® BY NOTtFICATION N0.996Q^>-287^XXt- B/C.G./05 AS SPECfFiED IN SCHEDUL£ I & H OF THE COURT FEES ACT 1870. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION N0. 10 / 2011 Bfifol^®?9^^ il||S@ @Ssg§I^JJ APPLICANTS (RESPQNDENTS) ^' • / •^s^' ^" f^94"!../-^' T^s^-"°""1 ^"' ONDENTS :>' 2. y STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Through the Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.). CHHATTISGARH STATE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING (SCERT), Shankar Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) through its Direct. Versus 1. DTLTIONER' ^-i / ^ (^^. ^-3 .^r. KANTI DARSHAN SAISHANIK 8s COMPUTER PRASHISHAN SANSTAN, (Kanti Darshan Mahavidyalaya), Kanti Darshan Parisar, Kosa Nagar (Nehru Nagar), Near Toll Plaza, Bhilai, District Durg (C.G.) through its President Shri R. K. Shrivastava, S/o Late Shri D. P. Shrivastava, Aged about 54 years, R/o 26/1, Radhika Nagar, Bhilai, District Durg. MAHARASHTRA KNOWLEDGE CORPORATION LTD. (MKCL), ICC Trade Tower, A Wing, 5^ Floor, Above Crossword, Senapati Bapat Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune - 411016 (Maharashtra), through its Managing Director. REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 90 OF THE CHHATTISGARHHIGHCOURTRULES,2007, 2. .^r- __AEDJica±io^ ^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :-BJLASPUR REVIEW PETSTJON N0.10 OF 2011 APPUCANTS (RESPONDENTS) RESPONDENTS (PETITIQNER) State of Chhattisaarh & Another. Versus Kanti Darshan Saishanik & Computer Prashlshan Sanstan & Another (REVIEW PETiTiON UNDER RULE 90 OF THE CHHATTiSGARH HIGH COURTRULES, 2007) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Deputy Advocate Generai for the State/applJcants Shri Harsh Wardhan, Advocate for the respondent NoJ. ORDER (ORAU , (Passed on this 7tn day of April, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the State/appiicants sybmlts that para 4 of the order dated 11/11/2010 passed In W.P.(C) No.5212/2010, is not clear and it appears that the petitioner/lnstitute were directed to admit the students in the B»Ed. course for the academlc session 2010-11. 2. The orde.r sought to be revlewed is very clear and .there is no confusion or amblgujty, if it Is read properiy. The direction was conditjonai, subject to verification of fact that the petitloner institute has been or has not been recognized by the NCTE. Thus, no amendment or clarificatlon is required. 3. In vlew of the above, the reviev^ petitlon -is dismissed. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun