^^^^- ^'tY&^? ..-•-•T^AJ^" ?...^-s^^i^^^ c^ i 0E3 t<f*- ^^" IN THE HON'BLE HIGH CQURT OF C.G. AT BILASPUR W. P.(Sl N0. ^641 OF 2009 r ! PETITIONER : B. Barik, S/o Shri Biharilal Barik, aged about 52 years, R/0 Range OffiGer, Arjuni Range, Forest Division Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.) 1(^;RSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Principal Secretary Forest Departnient, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Divisional Forest Officer, Raipur Forest Division, Raja Talab, ^aipur.District Raipur (C.G.) ^. 3. D. K. Sahu, Range Officer, Sita Nadi Rarige, Forest Division DUaiatari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) WRrTPETmONUNDERARTICLE226 OFTHE CONSTITUTION OFINDIA ^v HiOH COURT OP CHHATTtSGARH : BILASPUR WRiT PETITION (S) N0.^41 OF PETiTIONER B.Barik RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chtettisgarh & Others (Writ Peljtion under Articie 226 of the Con^tution of IncUa) Single Bench : Hon'bteShri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- -*h- 3. Shri PrateekSharma, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Dy. Advocate General forthe State. Shri K. Shakee, counsel forthe respondent No.3. ORDER (ORAU (Passedon this 7th day ofOctober, 2SKSB) With the consent of ieamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finalty. Challenge in this petition is to the transfer order dated 22-9-2009 (Annexure P/1), whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Range Officer, Arjyni, Forest Division, Raipur to Range OtBcer, Sitanadi, Forest Division, Ohamtari, mainly on ttie foltowing grounds: • Firstty, the transfer order has been passed only to accommodate ttie respondent No.3 with mata fide intentlon. • SeconfSy; ttie transfer order has been passed.in contravention to the transfer policy dated 22-9-2008 because the pedtioner is the vicUm of Uie frequent fransfers. • Thifdiy, the children of the petitioner are prosecuting their .studies and the transfer order . has been passed dudngthe midsession. I have heard learned counsel for Uie partl^, pemsed ttie pleadings and documents appended thereto. Submisstonofthe petitioner is contrary to the weli-settled principie of law that if there is any violation of any execut'rve instructions that may not be the ground for interfering wtti the transfer order. 8. 9. instrucUons statotory rules whteh are Justiciable in certain ciroumstances. In order that such executive Jn*ucUons have the force of statutory rule, it must be shcwn ttiat they have been issued either under the authority conferred on the Centra! Govemment or the State Government by some statute or under some provisions of the eonstitution providing Ifterefor. Thsrefore, even ITthere has been any breach of such ex^suta/e instructions that does not confer any right on any member of the public to ask for a writ against the Govemmerrt by a petitlon under Aiticle 226 of the ConsUhition of india." Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned trarKfer order on any other permissible legat grounds as aferestated, in preceding para 6, warranting interference with the irapugnad transfer order. For the reasons as aforestated, the petttion isdismissed atthe motion stage iteelf. / Gowri Sd/- ,... SatishK.AgI"notrl < Judge A; 'ffs-^'^S^i^^V^^'SS^^