Medical Council Of India v. Dr.Rajnesh Kumar Chakrawarty And ORS.

(y]^- .^^1 p^fl^ftTI ^1?''')*^"^

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

^ed ^eMA^o'^ CLLANCOUS CIVH- CASE No.

-t^ QF^gOg?c^-y APPLICANT Medical Council of India, through Secretary, Medical Council of India, Pocket-14, Sector-8, Dwarka Phase-1, New Delhi-110075 V E RS U S

1. Dr. Rajnesh Kumar Chakrawarty, S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Chakrawarty, Aged about 30 years, Occupation - Doctor, R/o C-7, Sector I, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS t

2. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Mantralaya at DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh l^-^A /,.1.-"

^•":".^^^ T"?

Afe'

.4..--"

3. The DiTector, Medical Education, Old Nurses Hostel, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Raipur, C/168, Tagore Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5.

The Dean, Medifcal College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 6.

Dr.

Shweta Agrawpl, Student of PG Medicine, Medical College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh eY^eCs pe^Ms^ APPLICATION FOR RECALLINGxTHE TNCORRECT STATEMENT MADE BY COUNSEL FQR^ THE APPLICANT RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH OF THE

ORDER

DATED 23/06/2009 IN WRIT RETITION (C) No. 2758/2009,'6R. RAJNESH KUWIAR CHAKRAWARTY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram: HON'BLE MR.T.P.SHARMA& HON'BLE MR.C.B.BAJPAI, JJ Reyiew Petition No.122 of 2013 ApRlicant Medical Council of India l/ersus Respondents 1.

Dr.Rajnesh Kumar Chakrawarty 2.

The State of Chhattisgarh 3.

The Director, Medical Education g'3t|ift.ff'te^ ,©]or|:n3ll!eE,^,,, Chhattisgarh S;V '"a Professi6nal?ExaRfffiatiQn Board 5.

The Dean, Medical College, Raipur 6.

Dr.Shweta Agrawal % (Application forrecalling ofthe order dated 23.6.2009) r.R.S.Marhas, counse t|1;he:aj3pltcant.

Ms PushpaDwivedi, Panel 1-awyer for respondent Np.2/State. T-u£:v:2iOR@iEff ";%s:i(g;6-1:^0'15) ^

1. By this review petition the applicant has prayed for review of the order dated 23.6.2009 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition (C) No.2758 of 2009 and other connected matters.

2. Registry'has pointed out the default.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant seeks to withdraw this review petition.

4. ConSequently, the review petition is dismissed as withdrawn. No order as to costs.

_.

.

Sd//- C.B. BAJ Judee Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge