1 wl -^ *;i t.^ !ua i-ina "8b! IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.l W.P. fS^ No.9.\\(\'S / 2010 PETITIONER ^^s^: ^^°s?^;' •^^••' ^ •\?-- RESPONDENTfS) : 1. S.R. Gupta, S/o Late Kedar Prasad Gupta, aged about 53 years, R/o Chatterjee Gali, Sarkaada, Bilaspur (CG) State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Home, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. ' Director General of Police, Police Head Quarter, Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) v^- 3.' Superintendent of Police, Chhattisgarh Police, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) 4. Chairman, Police Establishment Board, Police Head Quarters, Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA -^s. ;<P-ikf F /"d^r*^t FF~'i"r~ /*^.r*" i.'"1.i .";:_.{ f". ~!~'"'F'i!-'"'I'—'liA '"•rT S . 'J'*^!:? t- •rS.r tF l:f~- MiUM UUUK E Ul- CHMA !• t SoUAKt-f : BiLASf-'UK WRST PETJTION (S) NQ.2485 OF 2010 PETSTiONER RESPONDENTS ^.K. ssUpf^ Versus State of Chhaitlsa maaissarn & usners iWrit Petitlon under Article 226 of the Constitution of ^ndia'i Singie Bsnch : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Aynihofe'i, J. s-Tesent:- ann Vinoa iJesnmiiKn, AGvocate for tne petre.oner. Shri fwt Singh, Panel Lawysr for the State/respondente. 4. nc(? inR&i i \i-/'G-ir'\ t'^*')'\r"ii (Passed on this 8'" day ofFebruan/. 2011) Heare! learned counsei for the parties. By thls pefition, the petifioner seeks to chaSlenge the legai.ty and vaiidiiy of the ordsr dated 30/04/201 Q (Annexure P'10) by which the reprssenfetion dated 13/11/2009 (Annexure P/?) submitted by the pefifionsr against the transfer order cated 07/11/2009 'Annexure P/1). has been rejected. Learned counse! for the Dstjticnec subm'ts tnat bv order dated 07711(2009 ;he oetitioner rtas been transferred from BilasDur io Dantswsda. Against ths said order; ,the petitioner' prsferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1171/2010 which wss disposed of by this Court vide the order dateci 18/03/2010 (Annsxure P/8) w'th a directlon to consider the reoresentation aated 13/11/2009 lAnnexure P/7). On the ^ U rf*^ f^.^lh;"^ l^, f^T.-^-lt/^.'•^.ff*^'^ ^*il .1 ('tf'l^.r*^ y---^fE-^.i ^IS OT iUQ QsGSf ?SSS@0 0V ZHiS •^OUfI, 'iHS fSSPGnQSSRI ^UIHGfiliSS' considered and dismsssed the 'representaiion of the petitioner by ths impugned order dated 30/04/2010 (Annexure P/10) in an H'esai snd s.r0i?fs;ry i'T^sninsr. At this juncture; iearned counse! appeanng for the State submris that the oetltioner has girsadv continued at the originai place of posting for more than six months on accoynt of interim order dsted 19;05/2010 aranted bv this Court. The State/respondents mav be araRted iibertv to DSSS d 'i«.S;?SK;'r ^ '% .. y/ .-^•" approDilate orders keeoina in view DubSic interest srsd sdminjstraave exigency. Shr: Sinoh ftirther submits that the State/respondents shau not inslst upon compSiance of the imDugned ofdsr dated 30/04/2010 (Ar'nexure P/10i. !t is accordinaEv ordered. Since no effect couid be glven to the impugned order dated 30i'0-''201:0 (Anrtsxure P/10) on account of the interim oroer dared 19.D5/2010; JL is not necessary to go Jnto icgasity and vaiidity of ihe Irnpugnea order ciated 30/04/2010 CAnnexure P/10). in the facts ofthe case. in view of ths sbove. accordinci to iearned counsei apRearina for the petitione!-, nothing sun/ives in this peEition for adludicaiion. Accordinglv, ths oetition stands dissosed of. Na order asto costs. 8. Snterim rellef aranted on 19/05/2010 is vacated. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge