G^|^__ 8EFORETHEHIGHCOURTORCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR (CHHATTISGARHl W.P. fSyNo^65^of2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ ^f^' ^i^^ b^:^^" ^•o^y" .**" -•-•^" t^/S*' ,^y ^^ ^ ^ : ^"Anup Dutt Shukla, S/o Shri G.D. Shukla, aged about 58 years, present working in the post of Forest Range Officer at Korar Range (Kanker ForestDivision),Distt. Kanker<G.Gy VERSUS ^l. ^State of Chhatfisgarh through the SeGretary, Department of Forest, Dau Kalyan Singh Bl'iawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh ^. JointSeGretaryDepartmentofForest D.K.S. Bhawan RaipurGhhattisgarh ^-3. Divisional Forest Officer Forest Division Bacheli Distt. KaBtoF Chhattisgarh ^4. Prahlad Das, S/o LateShri Bhojwa Das aged about57years, Range Officer BaGheli, Distt.Dantewada Chhattisgarh. ^ WRlTPEtlTIONUNDEftARTIt£I..E2260FTHECONSTITUTION OFINDIA. 01 ParticularsabOuttheDetitiOner: As mentioned ajbove in the eause title. mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmON (S) No. 5652 of2009 PETmONER RESPONDENTS Anup Dutt Shukla. VERSUS State ofChhattisgarh & Others. ^K WRTT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Sattsh K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri T.K.Tiwari, Advocate fbrthe petitioner. Smt. Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer forthe State/respondents 1 to 3. ORDERfORAL^ (Passed on 05th day ofOctober, With the consent of leamed counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. By fhis petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 30 June, 2009 (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner has been transferred irom Korar Range, Forest Division, Kuiker to Bacheli Range, Forest Division Dantewada, on administrative grounds. Shri Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 4, Prahlad Das, who was transferred from Bacheli Range to Konta Range, filed a petition being W.P.(S) No. 3437/2009 which was dispos§^ of on 15 July, 2009 (Annexure P/4) with a direction to fhe petitioner to make a representation within a period of 10 days fi-om the date pfreceipt ofa copy ofthe order and the same was to be decided by fhe authorities within a further penod ofthree weeks. Till then, fhe petitioner was directed not to be relieved fi-om his present place ofposting. 3. Shri Tiwari farther submits thal though the petitioner has joined his new place ofposting, however, pursuant to the aforesaid order passed in W.P.(S) No. 3437/2009, Ifae respondent No. 4 has not been relieved from Bacheli Range and the petitioner is not being allowed to work. Shri Tiwari fiirther submits fhat the petitioner may be permitted to make a representation to the authorities concemed and they may be directed to consider and decide his represertation as early as possible. 4. Be that as it may, according to leamed counsel for fhe petitioner, the representation filed by the respQndent No. 4 is still pendinj consideration before the authorities. If the same has not been decided, the respondent-authorities shall consider the representation of the petitioner also alongwifh fhe representationoffhe respondent No. 4, and pass appropriate orders in accordance vyith law. In view ofthe above, the petition is disposed of. ^.^ G^^5t Amit ^K