IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^Gl\ REVIEW PETITIONNO. ~7 OF(2oio) SI?S|t8 S8"ch ^ ^PLICANTS/ ^RESPONDENT ....,,'%^^ ^n B^"v f^^^^^^^ 1. Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.), through The Registrar. y The Registrar Examination Guru Ghasidas Central University, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS NON-APPLICANT/ riTIONER NON-APPLICANTS/ yftESPONDENTS / 1. Rajeev Kumar Dubey, S/o Shri Laximinarayan Dubey,aged about 24 years, Resident ofBajrang Sweets, Gandhi Chowk, Bilaspur -(CG) 2^ The Principal Chhadami Lal Chouksey Homeopathic Medical College, Bilaspur (CG) ^T^^. '^Zl^^ ..-^.^... '.< ^- ww's- ^^'^^ i -^"^^ State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^^. Union oflndia, through the Secretary, Department of Higher Education, New Delhi REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 87 READ WITH RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH RULES, 2007 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED^7.07.2010 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C. N0.^23/2010 AND APPROPRIATE DIRECTION. 'S ^ HIGH CQURT OFCHHATTI8GMH AT BILASPUR REVIEW PETITION No. 7 of201 1 APPLICANT RESPO^-TOENT NQN-.APPLICANTS Gum Ghasidas Central Uiiversity. VER8U8 Rajeev Kumai' Dubey & CXhers. PETITIONER REVIEW PETITION UNDER RULE 87 READ WITH RULE 90 OF THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG.^H RULES, 2007 A04JNST THE ORDER DATED 07.07.2010 PASSED BY THI8 HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.C. N0.323/2010 ^<TD .^PPROPRIATE DIRECTION SB: Hon'Me SSm Satlsh K. Asmliotri, J. Present: Shri zAjshish Shrivastava, Advocate with Shri Harsh Wai'dhan, Advocate for the applicant. Shi'i Ajit Singii, Panel Law\'er for the State/respondent No. 3 Shri R.Pradhan, Advocate for the respoudent No. 4. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 11th day of April, 2011) Leamed couiisel appearing for the petitioner submits that apparent eiror has crept in the order dated 7.7.2010, passed in W.P.(C) No. 323/2010, which is sought to be reviewed on the ground that the answer sheet may not be made available to the respondent No. 1 ii^ s he makes an application in the prescribed fbrmat under the provisions ofthe Rigiitto Information Act 2005. Be that as it may, it is a teclmical objection for modification. Whether the application is made in the proper foniiat or in other foi'mat ifthe inteiition is to supply the answer sheet the format of the application may not make any difference, In view ofthe foregoing, I do not lind any en'or apparent on the face ofthe record. Thus, the review petition is dismissed. ^' Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Aniit