Wm € Revenue), Biiaspur Bibs ur ’CG) The (CG) Sant sh Kumar VCrma, S/o Shri Feku Lal “Md abaut 45 years, R/o Scuocl, Jarh bhata, Bilaspur (CG) WIT ?ETiTiOi\T ‘UWfD R ARTiCiE 2267227 OF TiiE Adv. with Shri Bharat Rajput, 1")_") (\Q .ma avw Shri P. Diwakar, S Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Arum Sao, Govt. Adv, for the State. S‘hri Dheeraj Vankhede, Adv. for the respondent No. 5. Dispute in the instant petition in nutshell is that the respondent No. 5 was posted as Patwari at Patwari Haika No. miffxHggé /W ’7/ W ma cons'm‘micr: 9F mam SB: non sHRi Damien—em mism J 15— n ? " WW f$$ WWW Wnmwtwm mm ?"TiTi0l‘i_"’ Nirgud Das Manikpuri, Sjo Shri Gyan Das V Varsus RESPONT)“"T$ 1. Stam of Chhattisgarh, through the Sscr‘etwy, Dapartment {3f Revanme, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Distt. Raiptu“ {CG} '2. The C‘oilector, Distt. Bilaspur,(CG) 3. Th6 Sub Di"sional OEmer (83.0. ,XI-HC~22 i9, Tahsii Biiaspur. He‘was transferred vide order dated 20- 10— '2004, however he flied a Wtlt petition before this Court bearing WP. ‘ No. 2703/2004 against his transfer order arraving the present petitioner as respondent. The above petition was disposed of vide order dated 209-2004 with direction to the petitiOner as well as respondent No. 5 to file representation against their transfer order. The ‘Coliector, Bilaspur dismissed the representation of respondent No. 5 vide Annexure P—3 with a direction to conipiy with the order dated 80—7-2004 and . amended order dated 7-8-2004. Thereafter, a fresh order dated 4-11~2004 of Annexure P—é- was passed, however, the above order aiso couid not be con: plied with as the respondent No. 5 did not hand over the charg . Thereafter, another transfer order dated 25—1-2005 transferril the petitioner from Patwari Haika 2 o. 19, Tahsii Bilaspur to P twari Halka No. 5, Tahsil Biiha was ‘Uassed. The above transfer rder has been stayed by this Court Vide order dated 14—7-2005 d UV virtue of the above order, the petitioner is stili continuing s Patwari of Patwari Haika No. 19. Learned counsei for t e respondent submits that in View of the fact that the petition r is worldng in the present place of posting since 2004 on the s ength of stay order passed by this @MD- EW.W.W u8%é/64L ’ respondent, the petition is dated 25-1-2005 is set asi libertV to pass appropriate l9, tehsii Bilaspur is set asi jet In View of the submiss ion made by learned counsel for the ailowed and the impugned order de. However, the State shai‘l be at exigencv in the matter of tra order'in the event of administrative nsfer/post‘ing of the petitioner. Sdl- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Maw 7 W 200 ma mm WWW WW )7 mmmm‘a WW WW é; Watt m Court, the State has no obiaction if the order impugneci dated ‘25-1-2005 transfen‘mg the petitioner from Patwari Halka No.