T ^- ^,^ c/r ^\ \ o^ ^•f¥ ^%7 ^y/ ^y Vs ^^r ^RESPONDENTS: IN THE HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION [51 N0. -3^1) /2010 PETITIONER: ^ Manoj Chandrakar, son of Shri G.L. Chandrakar, aged 42 years, Occupation - Service, presently posted as Range Officer Bagbahra, resident of Forest Campus, Main Road, Near Durga Temple, Bagbahra, Tehsil Bagbahra (CG) 'S>\$>^ naKo.SfatA^^ 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through; the Secretary, bepartment of Forest, Mantralay, b.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. 2. Shri Narad Lal Vaidya, son of <St age not known to the petitioner, Occupation- Service, presently working as Wood bepot Officer, Pithora, Forest Division Mahasamund (C6). WRIT PETITION UNbER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. r!'~ ^-^-^ ^\- l^^»s» COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT WRST PETiTION (S) N0. 3824 OF 2©1© Petltioner Manoj Chandrskar Versus Respondents State of Chhattisgarh & Another WRIT PETSTION UNDER ARTICLE 22S OF THE CONST1TUTION OF INDiA (SB : Hon'ble Mr. Satlsh K. Agnihotri, J.) Present:- Shri Sameer Shnvastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Pane! Lawyer for the State. Shri Ali Asgar, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 28th day of March, 2011) Learned counsel appearing for the petitloner submlts that vide order dated 15-7-2010 (Annexure P/4), the petitioner, working as Range Offscer, Bagbahara, Mahasamund Forest Divjson has been transferred to Pithora, Mahasamud Forest Division, on administrative grounds. However, by virtue of order dated 26-7-2010, the order dated 15-7-2010, which is impugned herein could not be given effect to, wherein this Court directed to maintain status quo. Learned counsei further submits that the petitioner is continuing at the originalplace of posting. SInce more than six months have passed and in view of the order dated 26-7-2010; the petitioner is continuing at the originai place of posting, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case at this stage. Learned counsel appearing for the State/respondents submits that the Government may be granted iiberty to passa fresh order without jnsisting on compjiance of order dated 15-7-2010, in respect of the petjtloner. In view of the above submission, according to iearned counsel for the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication at this stage. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with the aforestated observation and ilberty, ifso advised. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Gowrl