-^ HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH. BiLASPUR REVIEWPETmON N0,14/2011 PETITIONER 1.). RESPONDENTS 1 R.K. Vishwakarma, S/o Late Gopai Prasad Vishwakarma, aged about 52 years, Occupation Chief Munidpai Officer, Kotba, Nagar Panchayat, Kotba, District Jashpur (C.G.) (Eariier in writ petition W.P.(S) No.6021/2010 the review petitioner had been wrongly shown as Chief Municlpal Officer, Kota, District Bilaspur Versys The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Nagriya Prashashan and Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) The Additiona! Secretary, Nagariya Prashashan and Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) Commjssioner Nagriya Prashashan Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) President, Nagar Panchayat Kotba, Dlstrict Jashpur (C.G.) Peeluram S/o Late Shri Mannu Ram aged about 55 years, Occupation Servlce, Chief Municipai Offlcer, (aii relieved on 13.10.2010) Nagar Panchayat, Kotba, District Jashpur (C.G.) (ARJSING OUT OF ORDER DATED 21,10,2010. PASSED IN W.P.(S) N0.6021/2010 Appsarance: Mr. K.N. Nande, Counsei forthe petitioner. Mr. Satish Gutpa, Dy. Government Advocate for the State/respondents 1 to 3. None for respondents 4 & 5. ^f-^ Is;: ^.'•^.. •'!.if •^' REVaEW_PETiTJON N0.14/2011 QRALQRDER (12.05.2011) SUNILKUMARSINHA.J. This Court, while entertaining the Review Petitlon, issued notice to the respondents on t.A. No.02/2011, which was flled for condonation of delay in filing the Review Petition. Heard on i.A. No.02/2011, an application for condonation of deiay in fiiing the Review Petition. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the appiication, I.A. No.02/2011 is aliowed and the delay in filing the Review Petition is hereby condoned. Heard on admission. The petitioner hereln is seeking revlew of order dated 21.10.2010 passed in VV.P.(S) No.6021/2010. By the said order, the writ petition filed by respondent No.5 against his order of transfer dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure P/1 in the writ petltion) was ailowed and the said order of transfer v/as quashed in terms of the common order dated 05.10.2010 passed inVV.P.(S) No.3444/2010. Mr. Nande submits that the petitioner was working as Incharge C.M.O. at Kotba, District Jashpur, whereas, in the writ petition, respondent No.5 ciaimed that he was working at Kotba and was transferred from that ptace by order dated 25.09.2010. Therefore, the order was obtained by suppressing the materiai facts by respondent No.5. We gather from the order dated 25.09.2010 that by the said order, respondent No.5, who was working at Kotba, was sent to Chirmiri and by the same order, the petitioner herein was brought to Kotba. In view ofthe above fact, there is no question of suppression by respondent No.5, when he REViEW PETiTION N0.14/2011 ciaimed that he was working at Kotba while challenging the order of his transfer dated 25.09.2010, which is ciear from the face of the order itself. Moreover, the order of transfer of respondent No.5 was quashed on the ground that he was appointed as Charge Officer in Census 2011 -and thus, it was covered by the order dated 05.10.2010 passed in a batch of writ petitions by this Court, in which, the transfers of persons engaged in Census work were quashed. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, 1 do not find any good ground to review the eariier order dated 21.10.2010 passed in W.P.(S) No.6021 /201 0. The Review Petitlon, therefore, Is iiabte to dismissed and is hereby dismissed. g^ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna