IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRITPETITION ( C ) No.6%8^T Of 2010 PETITIONER: / QT'^^ .^- ^y (<>/w _^>^ •^'^/ y RESPONDENTS: 1. ^3. Ku. Bharti Patel D/o Shri Nehru Lal Patel, aged about 29 years, occupation Ex Student, M.B.B.S. Course in Chhattisgarh Institute of Medical Sciences (CIMS) , R/o 105 Saptshringi Apartment, Karbala Road, Bus Stand, BUaspur (CG). Versus The State of Chhattis^h, through the Secret%ry, Department of Medical Education, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The. Director, Medical Education, State of Chhattisgarh, Mantralay, D.K.^. Bhawan, Raipur (CG). The Dean, Chhattisgarh In9titUte of Medical Sciences (ClMS), Bilaspur (CG). WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CON8TITUT^ON OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 6885 of2010 PETITIONER RE8PONDENTS Ku. Bharti Patel. VERSUS The State ofChhattisgarh & OtiTers. ^. v..^. Amit WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri. J. Present: Shri Kamal Kishore Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri M.P.S.Bhatia, Dy. G.A. for the State/respondents. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 10ulday of December, 2010) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has made several representations to the respondent authorities for refund ofthe fee paid by her. However^jthere is no date mentioned or copy ofthe representation has been filed, which is stated to be filed earlier by the petitioner, except the latest representation dated 12.10.2010 (Annexure P/4) for grant of exemption under the circular dated 30.11.1989. 2. This Court had an occasion to consider the aforesaid circular in £)r. (Major) Thakur Ajit Singh & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others1. 3. Shri Bhatia, leamed Deputy Govemment Advocate appearing for the State/respondents submits that the representation of the petitioner, as aforestated, shall be considered and Tlecided in accordance with law and in the light oforder passed in Dr. (Major) Thakur Ajit Singh, as early as possible, preferably within a period ofthreeweeks. 4. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ' W.P.(C) No. 7222/2009, decided on 27.09.2010