H!GH CGURT OF CHHATT!SGARH AT BILASPUR 3.8.: HONEELE Mr. JUSTECE SUNQL KUMAR SINHA 8. HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE RADHE SHYANI SHARMA WRI'F APPEAL NO.386I2011 WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTEON 2111 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DlViSiON BENCH) ACT, 2006 Appearance : Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Counsel for the ‘appeilant. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, Counsel for the respondent. ORAL oRoER (02.11.2011; The foiiowing order of the “Court was passed by SunH Kumar Stnha, J. Heard. The appellant/petitioner has fiied this appeai against the order dated 29th of June 2011 passed in W.P.(C) No.3361f201 1. By the impugned order, the writ petition fiied by the appeiiant has been dismissed by the Writ Court. The appellant is a student of Engineering Course. After being unsuccessful in Applied Maths examination held by the University in the month of December 2010, she applied for obtaining the copy of the answer sheet. The copy of the answer sheet was not supplied to her. Thereafter, the appellant fi!ed the \‘\~\. glint/petition for production of the concerned answer sheet and for s\ \ APPELLANT Ku. Pooja JaiswaL D/o Ratan‘ Jaiswal, aged about 2O years, R/oMiG 41-26, Housing Board Coiony, Industrial Area, Bhiiai, District Burg-(0.6.), Versus x7 RESPONDENT ' Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technicai University, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, Through Registrar, Chhattisgarh /é )ix WR!T APPEAL No.386i2011 issuance of direction to the respondent to make arrangement to check the answer sheet by an expert before the High Court. A prayer was also made to suppiy the copy of the concerned answer sheet to the appeiiant by the University. The Writ Court held that the valuation and revaluation are the subject matters of experts. The Court cannot intervene in the valuation of the answer sheets done by the experts in the field. The writ petition, therefore, was dismissed. However, there was no order relating to supply of the copy of the answer sheet. Mr. Ttwari, in viewot’the judgment of the Supreme Court in Centre! Board of Secondary Education and another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (201 1) 8 SCC 497, submits that he is making a limited prayer to supply the copy of the relevant answer sheet of the appellant on her demand, for which, she is ready to tile a fresh application under the Right to information Act, 2005. Mr.Thakur, while making the statement that there is no provision for revaluation, submits that he has no objection to the above limited prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant. in view of the above admitted position, this writ appeal is disposed of with a direction that if so advised, the appeilant may file a fresh application for issuance of copy of the concerned answer sheet before the appropriate authority under the Right to information Act, 2005 and if such an application is flied within 15 days from today, the same shall be disposed of in accordance with law and also in accordance with the directions contained in the above cited judgment of the Supreme Court With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ appeal stands finally disposed of \r M“ v r r i (T j Sd/— Sd/e *\ ‘SumlKumar Sinha i Radhe Shyam Sharma ~ ’ Judge Judge