IKI ni lri iN A HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition No. 2436 of 2002 Petitioner: V.K. Talwar S/o C.L. Talwar, ayed about 50 years, R/o D- 84, Vasant Vihar, SBCL Colony, Seepat Road, BUaspur. Permanent R/o A-48, Ist Floor Defence Colony NewDeUu-110024. / Versus Respondents: l. South Easter Coal&elds Ltd., through its Chainaau Cum v Maaagmg Director SBCL, Bilaspur 2. The General Manager Executive EstabUshinent South Eastem CoaIfieHs Ltd. Bilaspur. 3. The Direcfor Marketmg Coal Ltd., 15th Part Street Apeejay House B-Block 6th Floor 15th Part Street, Calcutta-700 016 4. Shri Vijay Kachroo, General Mauager Sales & Marketmg, Soufh Eastem Coalfields Ltd., Bilaspur 5. Union oflndia fhrough the Secretaiy Departinent of Coal, Ministiy for Coal & Mines Shastri Bhawan New DeUii Single Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Arjun Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Praveen Das, Advocate for fhe Respondents No. 1 to 3. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for fhe Respondent No.4. ORAL ORDER (l«tFebraaiy, 2006) The foUowmg orieroffhe Courtwas passed by Satish K. Agnihotri, J. 1. The present petition filed by the petitioner, who was working as Deputy Chief SaJes Manager ia M-1 grade and was posted in S & M Deptt. at fhe South Eastem Coalfields Lunited, Head Quarter, Bflaspiir, impugns the order dated 19/21.10.2002 (Aiuiexure ^^.. rf?j ':/ fv A/ 1) whereby the services of the petitioner were traasfen-ed in the existing capacity/grade to Dankuni Coal Coniplex, Dakuni with uninediate effect. The petitioaer has 'further iinpugned the order dated 26/27.10.2002 (Annexure A/2) whereby the petitioner was reUeved fi-om his existiag place of posting as Deputy Chief Sales Manager, S.E.C.L. Head Quarter, Bilaspur forjomuig at Da-nkuni Coal Coinplex, DaELkuni. 2. The petitioner has inade several prayers in the petition iiichiding, chaUenguig fhe validity of fhe traasfer order dated 26/27.10.2002, seeking direction against the respondents not to harass the petitioner and his family meinbers and fiu-fher direction to fhe Central Bureau of Invest^ation for probe against fhe Respondent No.4. 3. I have gone fhrough fhe pleadiags offhecase aad the averments made ia the petition by fhe petitiouer. The petition is as vague as it could be wifhout specifically poiutmg out fhe instance which led fhe petitioner to beUeve that the petitioner and his family ineiubers are being harassed. It is weU settled principle of law that fhe Court caanot direct probiag enquny against a particiilar person wheu the speciBc allegation has not been inade agaiast the person. The petitioner has not made out any case for direction as prayed for iti the petition. 4. This Court vide order dated 13.1.2003 granted status quo with respect to the petitioner's posting as existuig on that day. 5. Thereafter fhe petitioner ffled an appUcation being M(W)P No. 3109/2003 for issuaace ofsuitable direction aad iaterim reliefin^ view of the subsequent events and developnients in the case. In the said application it was stated fhat vide order dated 17.6.2003 (Aanexure A-105) the petitioner has been transferred to Eastem Coal Pields Liinited, Sai'ictoria, P.0. Dishergarh, Distrit- Burdiaan. The present petition has not iinpugned the order dated 17.6.2003 (Armexure A/105). 6. In view of fhe subsequent developinents, fhe present petition has becoiue uifiructuous. The petitioner seeks Bberty to challenge fhe subsequent traasfer order, ifnecessary. 7. Wifh fhe aforesaid liberty this petition is disinissed as having becoine infiTictuous. No order as to costs. a's: Judee Thakiir