^ut^ Sslti HIGH COURT OF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR REV. PETITION N0.74/2007 APPLICANT Respondent No.7 (Petitioner No. 1) (PetitionerNo.2) Vs. o. b, 7. Mohamined Abrar, S/o. Mohanuned Iqbal (wrongly nientioned ia fhe impugned order as 'Iqbal Ahined' ) aged about 45 years, presiden.t Jama Masjid, Noori Masjid Trust Coianuttee, Ra^arh, R/o. Gaushalapara, Raigarh Tehsii aad District Raigarh (CG) 1. M.A. GaSar, S/o. Abdul Sattar, aged about 72 yesrs, R/o. Palace Road, Raigarh Tehsil and District Raigai-h (CG) 2. Mohamiued Muaeer, S/o. Abdul Sattar, aged about 45 years, R/o. Handi Chowk, Rsdgarb Tehsil and District Raigarh (CG) 3. Inspector General of Pollce, Bi!aspur Division, Bflaspur (CG) 4. Superiutendeiit Raigarh (CG) of Police, Chief Executive Officer. Cliliattisgarh State Waqf Board, Raipur (CG) Officer-in-chai^e, Cily Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG) District (CC-) Magistrate, Raigarh f3 (SB:jT[ontiteMr^Satish,,K._A,gaihotri^J.] Smt. Haaiida Siddiqui, counsel for the petitioner. Shi-i Vivek Shanma, Paael La\vyer for fhe State. (Passed oa this 19th day ofNovember 2007) Learaed counsel, Smt. Hauuda Siddiqui appeailag for review petitioner/respondent No.7 seeks review offhe order dated 5th July -z %. *.. .»e' \^y/ -^sssa--- 2007, passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2853/2007 whereunder tllis Court in para 5, while recordmg the prayer of fhe writ petitioner, directed to consider and examine flie coinplaiat dated 26.02.2007 iii accordaiice with law, on its own ments, wifhia a reasonable period. 2. Learued counsel subinits fhat the words used "that fhe applications Iiave been inoved under fhe provisions of National Seciirty Act" are being inisuiiderstood and the news iteias pubUshed rn soiue newspapers to fhat effect has damaged fhe reputation and image of the review petitioner. . 3. It is clear fhat the order dated 5th July 2007 does not indicate tlie findijug of fhe Court. The order states about the appUcation aad thereafter when a direction was niade it was stated that the coraplaiat dated 26.02.2007 be considered in accoidance with law on its oivu inerits. Thus, fhe applications nioved under the provisions of National Security Act is not the findiag of the Court but was recorded by the Court in fhe context of prayer clause No. 7.3 in writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) 2853/2007. 4., In view of fhe tbregoiag, no review is necessaiy. No ofher ground has been pleaded seekiiig review offhe order dated 5th July 2007. 5. .-The review petition is disposed of, accordingly. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge yzigiina