IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) PETITIONER: s^ :6^'^y^ ^^^-[^f^ ^•<..A..^ J^f'^ ^•-^^v"...^;'! ^^••w "<-> VERSUS w.P.No.....S°.ss:, ./2004 Akhand Pratap Tiwari Aged about 40 years S/o Shri ChhoteTal Tiwari Working as Forest guard R/o Dalli Road Bhanupratappur District North Bastar (Kanker) (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENTS: ^, c^^ ^'x^ L' ^ <y v^'.w10'' <y'.' v^' " ^.>.^ ^^:'"::^. ^^fl' 3 ^. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary, Department of Forests, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The Chief Conservator of Forests Government of Chhattisgarh Raipur(C.G.) 3. Divisional Forest Officer Bhanupratappur Forest Division (East) Bhanupratappur(Chhattisgarh) 4. Sub Divisional Forest Officer Sub Forest Division (East) Bhanupratappur(Chhattisgarh) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRITS OF IVIANDANIUS AND CERTIORARI AND FOR OTHER SUITABLE WRITS AND DIRECTIONS:- kai -d XI-HC-22 STI^T^T f^Twan^T S^^l<ft RTHf^cT x UasSiiSiffi affs—""'' 3^ -^WM^, ®Tflu'16,[s|(vfiy^<. ^l^l 147tVn IIICTI (n*!i<»i" • • :~—^:^?7'r^ 200 f^ sn^T^grwgf^T 25-4-2005 On a mention beinq made, Mr. Jitendra Pali, counsei Mr. Sandeep Oubey, 6oyt. Heard both the counsel. $y this writ petition unde India, the petitioner has ques1 order dated 10-11-2004 pass^ petltioner has been transferred Forest Division: Narayanpur. The case of the petition^i Bhanupratappur and is aiso an Employess Union. The impugne^l been passed behind the back o the Model Code of Conduct government bodies. Learned counsel for thel may be allowed to make a repr^ his grievances caid in turn, res| same, to which learned coun^i objecti'on. ?>prf?PfrT WqCTT ff feca-rfsfRR ^srf^n'sn^]' I'he matter is taken up for hearing. for the petitioner. |Adyocate for the State/respondents. Article 226/227 of the Constitution of ^oned the legaiity and propriety of ths id by respondent No.l, whereby the from Forest Division, Bhanupratappur to is that he is working as Forest Guo.rd, •ive menriber of the Chhcttisgarh Forest order 1'ransferring the petitioner hos the petltioner after coming into force n view of the elections to local seif petitioner submits that the petitioner isentation to respondent No.l roising al! )ondent No.l be directed to decide the el for the State/respondents has no XI-HC-22 sn^T^ feNlSIT^T aiiItiHfsg' SBlfR) L;s(F]l3te?i-: ^^I^^N^' soma 3sr •^WM^, w^wie, Rfciiuy 3<|^| ^ach _..^^SQ3S/ ^ *IIHCfTSh*1|th 200^- Sfl^l^WIWHfgtT Having heard learned the facts and circumstances ofl fit case in which the petition^r representation roising all his ^ri allowed to make a detailed rep^n period of 10 days from today, consider the same ond decide all the points raised by the receipt of the representation, shal! not be reiieved if a) representation is decided. With the direction aforei Consequently, M.(W.)P.N4. Parties are entitled for cou^isel for the parties and having regard to the case, I am of the opinion that it is a should be»allowed to make a detailed ^rievances. Therefore, the petitioner is rep^resentation to respondent No.l within a in turn, respondent No.l is directed to n an objective manner after considerin; }eti|t'ioner within one nionth from the date of in accordance with law. The petitioner not relieved so far,- till the ahd petp'ioner t)i<il<i41-f iiiciTffte^tiRi^K ^sif^ftrsn^T i^aid, the petition stands disposed of. 1.5273/2004 also stands disposed of. ^ertifiedcopy of this order. _^___-^ Sdt- L.C. Bhadoo judge (^y^)