^? >S7^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.PMNO. 12 63- OF 2010 SfW@L! ~^) .^ PETJTIONERC^T Subhash Nag, S/o Shri Levin Nag, aged about 22 years , R/o 61-A, Ruabandha Sector, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS \0 RESPONDENTS : 1. Govemment Polytechnic College, Durg through Principal, Govermnent Polytechnic College, Durg (C.G.) <r' 2, Pt. Ravishankar Shiikla University, through Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar ShuUa University, Raipur (€.G.) .y'yefi» ls».^ ^*^-~<s€£:% /^/' ^^ ^•^i * ^St 'i. B. •^. 1 ^ i ®fl^^^^^t^^1,-^^lj G^ '"tfea'^". rt'!<<» 'i' -»..G^vsxy^-s1' 3. Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, through Registrar, Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Sector 8, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER: As shown in the cause title. 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As shown in the cause title. m^. S SKSS "l'::l';i!i:- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH_: BILASPUR WRIT PETITION_(C) N0.1263 OF_2010 PET1TIONER Subhash Nag RESPONDENTS Versus Government Polytechnic College, Durg & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Ashish Nag, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Manoj Dube, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri N.N. Roy, Advocate for the respondent No.3. QRDE_R_(0_RAU (Passed on this 13th day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to provide the answer sheets of the concerned subject with the marks allotted in the second attempt and further, non-supply of answer sheets to the petitioner is illegal and arbitrary. 3. Case of the petitioner, in short, for disposal of the case, is that the respondent authorities had declared the petitioner absent in the subject Fundamental and Process Metallurgy in 3 semester and practical examination of 6 semester, whereas, according to the petitioner, he appeared in the said subj'ects in the academic session 2004-05. 4. The petitioner has approached the authorities under the Act, 2005. The Chief Information Commissioner vide order dated 22-6-2009 (Annexure - P/6) fixed the case on 29-9-2009. The petitioner has filed this petition annexing the order sheet dated 22-6-2009. 5. When the learned counsel appearing for the respondents informed that the petitioner had already taken recourse to the provisions of the Act, 2005 and the order has been passed, the petitioner circulated a copy ofthe order dated 19-11-2009,which is taken on --record, wherein the Chief Information Commission declined to v^fb ^sS^^^^^i Gowri direct supply of answer sheets on the ground that the answer sheets have already been destroyed by the respondent. 6. The petitioner has not challenged the order dated 19-11-2009 passed by the Chief Information Commission. It appears that the petitioner has deliberately kept back the order dated 19-11-2009 to mislead the Court, as the same has not been filed. Special Act i.e. the Act, 2005 has come into force whereby an Authority has been created for the purpose of supply of information to the public. The petitioner has also availed the same. After loosing the case under the provisions of the Act, 2005, the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief without disclosing the fact. Thus, it is a case of suprresio veri and suggestio falsi. 7. Shri Dube, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/University, submits that as per clause 15 of the Ordinance No.5 the answer sheets have been destroyed unless and until required by any authority, within a period of six months from the date of declaration of the results. 8. Clause 15 of the Ordinance No.5 reads as under : "15. Except as otherwise decided by the Executive Council the examination answer-books and documents regarding the marks obtained by fhe examinees, except the tabulated results, shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of after 6 months from the date of the declaration of the results." 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, no direction can be issued, particularly to a person who is coming to the Court after concealing the certain material facts. 10. ln the result, thewrit petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No orderasto costs. r sd/- ' SatisbK.Agnihot" |i! ^ lliiil IIHg