•i'^y'-!SWS^SS''S'l!SSV-S9VS3St'SS!W: m<% HIGH (XIURT 0V CHHATTISGARH, BIL^tPUR W.P. (81 No.4283/a<X)7 PETITIONBR RESPONDEMT Mannu Ram Jain, Age about 48 years, S/o Shri Bal Goviad Jain, R/o Amoda, Block - Narharpur, Tahsil - Narharpur, District Kanker, Chliattisgarh Versns State Govt. of Cbhattisgai-h, Through Secretary Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhawaa, District Raipiu- (C.G.) Appearance: Shri Soinkant Venna, coiinsel for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Govt Advocate for the State on advan.ee copy. ORAL ORDER (2S.7.2007JI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Heaid on adinission. I^eamed counsel for t}ic pRtitioner subinits that by an earlier order dated 27.6.^)07 (Aiinexiire P/2), the petitioner was transferred fToin Kanteer to Kahirdhani. Thereafter, another order dated 29th Juae 2007 (Annexure P/4) vas passed, in which the petitioner was ti'ansferred from Kanker to Jagdalpur. He submits that two orde.rs were passed in case of the petitioner one after another. His subinission is totally misconcewed. 1f both the orders are penised, it will come out. tJiat in the secoad order, the petitioner has been shown to he worlang at Kanker, wherc he was shown to be working in the earlier order and froTa Kaaker, he has been tTansferred to Jagdalpiir, therefore, in fact, earUer order was neitlier executed nor efFected and ultunatety, the second orier was passed. There appears to bc some clerical/ofRcial error on the point. which can be clarified by inaking an applicatTOii for clarification in r W.P.fS)No.42S3/2007 the concemed Departinent and that would not be a gTouiid for interfering in fhe order oftransfer ofthe petitioner froni Kanker to Jagdalpur, which is the subsequent order. The petition has no nierit and the satae is disposed of. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to file aa application/representation before the concemed authorily to get the things clarified by thein. _^,_— Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Shyna T* r