BBi 5S®&;;-'S n-y^x^9— ffiSSil^H (30URT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 W.P. (S)N6. 11?)^, / 2010 / fc KSS ^^^•^ KStiS^ ^l^?^'.'. BtSS' T[MS ^se^ ^iri^Ajl^-.- .jf'" j*' KsSSy'' ef' K!SSi SsBJK ^^ls^'': ^KSy ^;^0,;'-,: Tej RamSahu S/o Late Ishwar GhandraSahu Aged about 53 years Forest Range OfEcer, ForestDivision Ktiairagarh. Gandai, Distf; Rajhandgaon (CG) VERSUS 1 f 2. / State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary Fprest Departinent D.K.S.Bl3awan,Raipuf(CG) SBt.'Secretary, • .. ,. ;' Forest Departiiient, Gciverntrient of Chhattisagarii ? DKSBhawan,Raipur(CG) Ghief Conservator 6f Forest GfGfee of the Chief ©onservatQrof Ii'orest, Rorest Department, •AmyaBhawan, Near Medical . eoUege,Raipur [CO) . : 4. <^ShriR.K.,Mandale. I%rest Range Officer ': Ba.snaDivisipB, : ; ; Eorest Division Maliasamurid, ^;,^Distt.Mahasamud(GG). BBB@®I'TI©N-'l.JSE)ERAR'nCLE 226 iOF THE ssss ^' SQNSTrrU'I'ION OR INDIA Xi) •' .•.^•;:^E"*N H' c1 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra Writ Petition (S} No. 1184/2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS : Tej Ram Sahu Versus State of Chhattissarh and others Aooearance: Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Sushil Dubey, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents No.l, 2 and 3. WMT PETITION LTNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF BNDL4 ORAL ORDER (28.01.2011) Heard. (2) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the order dated 22 September, 2009 (Annexure P-2) the petitioner was transferred to Gandai General Forest Range, Forest Division Khairagarh. The petitioner executed the transfer order, however thereafter by the impugned order dated 10/03/2010 (Annexure P-1) the earlier executed order has been cancelled and the petitioner has again been transferred to Forest Range, Basna in Mahasamund Forest Division. (3) Leamed counsel vvould submit that from Annexure R-l filed by the State with its retum it vvould be clear that respondent No.4 Shri R.K. Mandale has been posted as OfFicer on Special Duty, Basna \-<Range in Mahasamund Forest Division. This order was passed on ^SI^ •;^^^J^^'. ^.([^l ^? ^ '^s^^ )A\ -?- -11 15/07/2010. He would thus contend that in view ofAnnexure R-l the petitioner may not be required to be posted as Range Ofiicer in tlie same Range where the respondent No.4 has been posted. (4) Leamed State counsel would submit that the impugned order was passed on administrative ground and no interference is called for. (5) In view ofthe order Annexiire R-l and particulariy in view of the fact that the interim order passed by this court on 22/03/2010 is continuing and the respondent No.4 has already been posted as Officer on Special Duty in the Forest Range, Basna in Mahasamund Forest Division, it may not be possible to execute the impugned order with respect to the petitioner because two Range OfEcers cannot be posted at tfae same place i.e. at Forest Range, Basna. (6) In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed with respect to the petitioner. If the administrative exigency still requires, the petitioner may be posted elsewhere, mcluding the present place, aad the State Govemment would be at liberty to pass appropriate order in this regard. (7) The instant writ petition is allowed with the above observation. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge °\,-u"