SWLE BEM’EH @ C/KKLMV Cg? IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. ‘73M /2010 PETITIONER Bajan Singh Dadsena S/o Late Shri Najru Singh Dadsena, aged about 43 years, Forest Guard, posted at Pithora Range, Forest Divisional Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1) State of Chhattisgarh through ,The Secretary, Forest Department D.K.Si Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2) The Conservator of Forest, Circle Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (C.G.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Kanker Distt Kanker (C.G.) Officer, Forest Range Pithora, District Mahasamund (C.G.) / 5) Range - WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTIO’NbE INDIA. /,I§ ’ EEGH COURT OF CHHA’}VI“ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (5i) N0. 7341 0f.2010 PEHE‘ION‘ER : Bajan Singh Dadsena. VERSUS > RESFONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PE’HTION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agiihotri. J. Presem: Shri S.K.Dadsena. Advocate for the petitioner. Shit A.V.Sh1‘idhar, Pane} Lawyer for the State/respondents. GWER (G {AL} (Passed on G 1 s” Lia» of February, 20 1 t) Chatienge in t'tiis petition is to the, outer dated 31.7.2010 (Amtexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has been askeci to take re‘éieviiig from the originai place ofposting and proceed to join the new place of posting pursuant to the order dated 15.7.2010 whereby the petitioner was transferred from Range, Pithora, Forest Division Mahasamurrd to Range Kanker. Genera} Forest Division Kanker, aiorrgwith 17 other persons. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not made any'appiication for his transfer. Thus, the orsier dated 15.07.2010 transferring the petitioner from one piace to another. is without any basis. Be that as it may, since the order dated 15.7.2010 is not under chalienge in this petition, theretbre, it cannot be examineti asto whether the same was oasseiif'on the request ofthe petitioner, or or on administrative exigenoy. The reiieving order dated 3 1 .0’72016, 5x} 0?‘‘ 2 5f3r pursuant to the order timed 15.7.20 1'0 cannot be helcl as vitiate(i on any account. Thus. the petition deserves to be and is accordingly dismisseci. 4. However, if the petitioner has any grievance with regard to his transfer which is alleged to have been made without any request, the petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate appiieation to the authorities concerned for redressal of his grievance, and in the event an app'iication is made, the same may be considered and appropriate order may be passed by the respondent authorities, in accordance with law. t Sdk Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Anni