\,__.m.1..~..mmv, h..- V.._m-_.. 4‘ :A« \‘ I-HGH COURT OF CHEIATTISGARH A: BILASFUR Review Petition No. 21 01'2007 : 1. Pt. Ravishankat Vishmvidyaaya Raipur Through: Registrar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (0.6.) 2‘ Vice‘ Chancelior, Pt. Ravishnnkm Vishwavidyalaya Raipur, Distt. Raipu: (C.G.) VERSUS ‘NON-A/I’PLICANTS : 1. Ku Anublmn Gupta D/o Ashok Kumar , Gupta Aged about 20 years, R/a 306 Vmayak Nagar Raipur Tah51l 8L Dismct. ‘ Ralpur (C G) 2. State of Chhattlsgarh Through-Secretary Higher Educauan Mmm SemtanaL DKS Bhawan, Raipux(CG) 3. Prmcxpal Raapur Institute of Techmlogy, Dlstt Rmpur (C G) APPLICANTS EVIEW PETITIONEORREVIEW OF THE.JUDGMENTJORDE ‘ BY THIS HO‘N’BLE C‘GUR TDATED?2’9’;0’3:2007: Singlet Bench: . HomblaJumice Shri Satish K. Agnihotn; V By cuculauon 1n Chamber ORDER. (Passwon 27m day ofApril, 2007) 1. The mamr 1s mken up for cons1demuon m the chamber under I. prrmsm 9f Rae 7&2) 0f The High Court nf Ohbmagarh Ruies, I 2005 2.. By tins peuuen, the apphcants—rwpondents 2 and 3 1n ma wnt pennon mamly quesuons the power of thls Court undex Armle 226 v v of the Consummn of Indla on the grouné that once ttm non— V applicant no 3 coHege has submitted detanls of the marks 0mm . by the non-applicant no l/peutaoner m the pracucal test, thc same» u should not be permttted to be modlftod aothe non-applicant collegei‘ has not replied to the toner dated 9 12 2006 issued by the non- appllcants W R R._ _ w ‘In the facts, of the case; amnheafing all max panics inthe’ main , petition,.,this Court noticeddthat. by mistake*.themarksy,ohwiine¢by . . the non-applicant, no. Uwrit petitionen in: ther’practiealwexamr was ._ entered, as 78f, infa‘cgshe obtainedflsf ‘marks/iniherpmctiw‘lumaxks‘, ‘ in the subject “introduction to Jawa Programming” Ambrdinglys ‘ ; E th1s Court directed that the result of the non—apghcant no .‘ l/petmoner be deciaxed after havmg taken mm aeeeunt 18’ marks“ I vobtamed by the penuoner m the praeneal exammanen The dispute. l I between the College and we Umvermty shmtid not come m way of e : careerv of a studemwwhouhasgebtamedmom maxks‘ aadhy mahng‘ . r wrong entry in the mark-sheet which is admitted latex on by. the V _ college, the penuonet was demed the beneiit ofher werk ' 'I‘lns rev1ew petmon 1s not to seek rewew of any enter apparent an: t /‘ the face 0f the record but 1t questions the authonty ot‘ tins Court“. under Article 226 ofthe Coneututxon oflndla I i On perusingxheedocuments,ho. appatent’ierrothaehbeen.foondmingthe» J W ordet Soughtto be reviewed. Thus, this applicationdesetvesttoibe,e dismissed suxnmaxily. , It is Well s’ettledth‘atoneethe State. or, anyinstmmenmlityiofthelState , is a party it is an obligation in law to act fairly,’ justly and , j reasonably which is the requirement of Article 14 ofthe Constitution I r 1 of India A writ court can issue suttable directions to set right the“ E arbttrary when of the mstrumentahty ofthe State The Universtty ts n \ \V ..\ ) : The Supreme Court, m ABL Intemauonal Ltd). Vs. Export Cxediti _ Guarantee Corpn (3f India Ltd & Othersl (2004) 3 SCS 553 held} f i as under v “28 Howaver, whlla entemmmg an omeeuon asmm. v, the mamtmnabihty ofa wnt petmem umier Artwla‘22 ii ‘ of the Consnmtum of India, thmcourt s Quid bean ‘ mmd the faét that the pawer to issue pmgwve wnm ' admittedly an msmlmemahty 0f the State 6 ‘1’ m: under Article 226 o the Constttuuon ls penaxv m ature and ls not hmlwd by any other provssxons of the Consumtlon The High Caurt havmg {egamd to th facts 9f te casc, has a discretion to entertain 0r not t entertam a wnt peunonr The Court has mpased upon 1tself certam restncuon m the exatclse 0f tins power See Whulpoo} Corpn V Regxstrar of Trade Marks nd th1s plenary of the High Court to issue a rerogatwe wnt wxli not normally he exercised by tk ( ) A Court to the excluswn of the other ava1lable remedles, . .. . nless such action of the State or its Instmmenlahty 13 rb1trary and unreasonable so as to wolate th onst1tutlonal mandate of Amcie 14 or for other vall nd legmmate reasons, for winch the Court thmks 1 necessaxy to exerclse the saxd unsdlohon f l n e. h o p e I ' u x a e“ L o d a t. J 2 The petitioner. hasvnot ponte out any manest error on te recor and the etitionet has not furtherr brouht into the notice, an ne itact which could not be produced ear1er despte ditigent‘ eforts made b the petitioner. It is well settled that the Ieview proceedings are not by way of an appeal an have to be stn'etly confinedto the ’ scope and ambit of order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of CivitPmcadm, even in; exercise of revie un‘sdietion b the Hih Goon under Article 226V of te Constituton o Ina. The appheant has not . pd h h Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri id if h d p g y w i i f y d w j y g h i f di rouced any new ground for review except the samergroundswhie ave been. considered anddecidedin me‘writ petitiom I or the reasons stated above, this revie application-is dismissed. F w