IUF^ F RFIiCli INlal-C ^^w'uitt C Ql \ ^s- ATBILASPUR WRIT^mTION (Q No;^5~^ psnTKmsR: .'•- fr' ' ^^> .^^%/- t*^o"M^ ^" . *..•" ^<y Arvind Chandratear S/o Shfi >.S,Chandrakar , aged aboat 24 years ,4fe Year {Fined Year) Studeftt of B.P.T.> Phyaotherapy Cofl^e , iudaparaj Raipnur, resident of Matra Chaya, near Sfaiv Chowk, 1st lane befoa-e Sai Kttpa. .Mandir, Rsga Talab, Raipur tCG). RESiONDENTS: ^l M 5^i ^' !ES BIB' Bi TheStateof Chhatdsgea-h, throu^i the Secretary, Higha- Edncaticai Departmenit M.antraSay at D.K.S. Bfaawan Raq»ur(CG). Bandit Itevishanker Siukla Umversity , &rou^i fhe Registrar, Paadxt RavishgBiker Shukla Unaversity, Raipur {CG). CONmt?t%ON^ "SSKSS ^^-^r%( :::Sl^'¥1^^8^%^SSSSff^Si^^SSi • '.K •i*-:;%•'!i?.^®K'<i:i^&VS:FSi'%?Si..^ssi^??': ^ mGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 2560 of2009 PETITIONER : Arvind Chandrakar VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ESTDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rakesh Thomas, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K. Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 19'1' day of November, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner, for the identical relief as sought in Arvind Chandrakar v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Another , has approached this Coiirt under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court, by order dated 18 October, 2008 (Annexure P/6) after having heard leamed counsel for the parties, disposed ofthe matter i.e. Arvind Chandrakar . 2. The petitioner has approached this Court again for the same relief as follows: 1. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issite a •writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent University to prodvce the answer sheets of the petitioner of BPT Final Yearfor kindperusal ofthis Hon 'ble Court; 2. That this Hon 'ble Court after perusal ofthe answer sheets ofthe petitioner, be pleased to commandthe respondent University for reevaluate the answer sheets of all the 4 failed subjects and thereafter declarefresh resuh ofthe petitioner; _LWJ\(C) No.2572 of2008 (decided on 18-10-2008) R8H ^ff;:^' Arun 5. That this Hort 'ble Court befurther pleasedto grant suitable and adeqtiate compensation to the petitioner on -whose fault checkmg of the answer sheets of the petitioner, forced to loss 2 precious academic session and deprive from internship; That this Hon 'ble Court may kindly be pleased to command the respondent University to provide the photocopies of answer sheets of all the failed subjects -which the petitioner demanded under the Right to Information Act; That this Hon 'ble Court may kindly be pleased to impose exemplary cost upon the respondent University; Any other relief which this Hon 'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favow ofthe petitioner; Contention of the leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the petitioner has discovered certain documents thereafter. Be that as it may, it is a matter of judicial discipline and propriety when the case has been considered on merits on the same set ofrelief, sought by the petitioner, he cannot be permitted to raise the same issue again by filing substantive petition under Article 226 of the Constitution oflndia once again. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- SatishKAgnihotri Judge