(^^ \^y75J^ -0 m IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. ( ^5 OF 2010 PETITIONER <' RESPONDENTS 1 ^...•riy' N®!/> ^•^y" ^ Sahdeoram Thakur, aged about 54 years S/o Late Shri C.R. Thakur, Caste Gond (Schedule Tribe) Occupation Service, Working as Station House Officer, Police Station Kharora, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home (Police), Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Director General of Police, Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Police ^-y^' o.:^y'' ^•- ^^y ^..y^' y 3: 4. ^" Inspector General of Police, Raipur Range, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Superintendent of Police, District Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCEOF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION. DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS. ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.1885 OF 2010 PET!T!QNER Sahdeoram Thakur RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Dhiraj Whankhade, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri P.K. Bhduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 23rd day ofApril, 2010) Heard learned counsel forthe parties. 1. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhilaigarh. Without completion of two years of posting at Police Station, Bhilaigarh, by order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1) the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Dantewada, which is against the provisions prescribed under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short "Act, 2007"). 2. Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides that in case of administrative exigency the same shall be recorded in writing or on the request of the employee, the bar of two years may be lifted. 3. In the case on hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is norequest on the part ofthe petitioner and if, itwas a case of administrative exigency,there was nothing recorded in writing to make reasons for transferring the petitioner after taking recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 2007. 4. Shri Whankhade further submits that being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an appeal under 8. Gowri the provisions of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 to the Police Establishment Board on 23-11-2009 (Annexure - P/7). Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 provides for consideration and disposal of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of prder. 90 days have lapsed; the Police Establishment Board has not passed any order. It appears that the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been violated at two places i.e. firstly; while passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and secondly; by not considering the appeal/ representation within 90 days, which is statutory prescribed limit. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer, submits thatthe pending appeal/representation of the petitioner, before the Police Establishment Board, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 14 days. In view of foregoing, without examining the merits of the case, the Director General of Police/respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that till disposal of the appeal/representation, the impugned order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexure - P/1), passed in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. — Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge