% ftt- HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon'ble Shri N.K. Aaarwal & Hon'bie Shri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. :ADDealNo.S25of2011 P.L. Kesharwani, aged - 58 years, S/o Late K.N. Kesharwani, presently working as - Testing Supervisor, ©rade- I, at - 132 KV Sub Station, Adbhar (Sakti), R/o Shubham Vihar, Bitespur Vs. Respondents 1. Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limited, Ralpur (A Successor Company of CSEB) (Government of Chhattisgarh undertaking) Through - Its Managing Dlrector, H.Q.- Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Chief Engineer, Chhattisgarh State Power Transmission Company Limitsd, Raipur. H.Q.-Daganiya, Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Superintending Engineer (T&C), Circte C.S.P.T.C.L. Tifra, Bilaspur (CG) 4. The Executive Engineer, Sub Station Division, C.S.P.T.C.L. Tifra, BHaspur 5. The Executive Engineer, Sub Station Division (MKT), C.S.P.T.C.L. Kotara Road, Raigarh. Writ Appeal under Section 2 (1) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court Present: Shri R.K. Kesharwani, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Kishor Bhaduri, Additiona! Advocate Generat S. Agrawal, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 21st November,2011) Vk sil a '•!—l;ii» -W I? PerN.K. Aaarwal. J Heard on admission. 1. The appeliant has filed ttiis intra-court appeal against the order dat«l 09. 1, passed in W.P.(S)No.6545/2011. 2. The appeltant/petitioner filed writ petition Tor the following relief: i. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pteased to allow the wrft appeal and to quash the impugned order dated 09.11.2011 Annexure/A-1 passed by the ieamed Single Bench in W.P.(S)No.6545 of 2011. ii. May kindly be pieased to allow the relief sought in writ petition (S) No. 6545/201 1 and to quash the impugnedtransferorcterdated 10.10.2011. i iii. Any other relief as the Hon'ble Court may be deemed fit. iv. Cost of appea! may kindly be aiiowed. 3. The petitioner has preferred the writ petition seeking quashing of the order dated 10.10.2011, whereby he was transferred from Adbhar (Sakti) to Banmkela, Dislrict 4. Learned Singie Judge on thorough consideration of the submteions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any infirmity in the order of the petitioner's transfer and as such dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated09.il.2011. 5. Shri Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the order of appellant's transfer cannot legally be sustained as the same has been passed within a short period offive months. /.•'ll )^ -U'. 'tfB '' 1 m.y } '^^.-...•^ ,yijay 6. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the parties, and the grounds taken by the appellant/petitioner in the writ appeal and writ petition, we are satisfied that neither the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge nor the order of the petitioner's transfer dated 10.10.2011 suffers from any inflrmity whatsoever. We, therefore, do not flnd any scope for interference in this intra-court appeal, the same liable to be dismissed, and is dismissed summarily. Sd/- N.K-AgrawaI Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge