.^&^ ^s^ ..--•^^^i'..-"" ^0-":^^ ^•"\\..M':>II'V K.'-"' ^^,u- '>-"•"' tursa ^A^SJS w.p. vo. m SIWl ^ Raghuraj Sin^i S/o. Banjir Sin^i, Aged aboSt 43 vears, R/o. Rajapara, Purana P< House, Raigaria, Disbict Raigaa-h tCG} f^^^y'%, A *ft f"«A.f%l '* 1,1 fe^%l -•"".<' e<y' TS ^ K.S. t^.t^.Q SfjsSe ofChIiattisRaA, Throu^i-: Seixvtaty, Co-opsiFatwe DepartinerA flgdfe^ric fcHislsxf Bhawari, RaipSr<CGi5 2] Re^strsa", Co-sperattve Saeie^', Chhaffisearti, Raipur, Distt Raipui- {C<^ 3T District Registrar Co-operatwe Socie^-, AaibifeasQr, DiB&ietSurgaja ^CG) 4i ISsindrana&i Painkara, Senior Co- Gpefeilave }u.s»6etor, &:i: tfae GfSee ef Assistant R^istrar, Co-operative Soae&, JasHpur, Die&'Kii; Jasiipur {CG) _/<• ITrog_OMD@R 22S/M7 OP cossTrroTsos OF SHEIA XI-HC-22 il^T^T R-iwsn^r snilti uftci shf ?s?'<i|i''<id<i, 8iTny'l<», Ricii^y 3TT^T *<s|th NINni S»l11«»> ^.•P..:^.:339.^ R^ 200 311^1 8'WIWBfer 12.07.2006. Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, coij Mr. Satish Gupta, Dy. G| °bl<lfc1<f1'f WRTffffS^S <R]t<l< ^sri^Tsn^r nsel for the petitioner. .A. for the State/respondents 1, 2 and 3.on advance copy. Heard. By this writ petition unc|er Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has questi(j>ned the legality and propriety of the order dated 30.06.2006, whereby h6| has been transferred from Ambikapurto Jashpur District. The case of the petiti<>ner is that he is working as a Senior Cooperative Inspector at Am|}ikapur. Initially, he was appointed on 13.06.1994 as Cooperath/e Ex|tension OfRcer at Udaipur from where he was promoted vide order datecf 05.07.2005 and posted at Ambikapur vide Annexture-P/1. Learned coitisel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred just to accommodate respondent No.4 vide Annexure-P/7, because, the tr^nsfer of respondent No.4 has been made on his own request. tt has ah transfer of the petitioner is ma^ Leamed counsel submits thal ao been menConed in the petition that the 'a ffcte and colourable exercise of powers. there are so many Senior Cooperative Inspectors who are working at ^mbikapur for last so many years and they have not been transferred. W within a short span of time ani request, whereas the petitionei] on administrative_exigency. icreas the petitioner has been transferred J he has not completed even one year at Ambikapur and out of ten tran^fers eight have been made on thelr own and another pereon has been fransferred Therefore, the transfer of the petitioner ('fl&sloS) ?w;"<:UK'saig$is^aFi^"!sfe?BSa ttoBd.d^.utlltMNI XI-HC-22 3I11^T?>T R-fi+sn^r SKfitiBfeT :l<t^ ^ ^x ^sg' '^WM^, wSww, Rtcilti^< 3TT^?T qa^ ^Tg^^^---^^ 200 R'()«d sii^r CTaraT^rfer -5/- cannot be said to be administtative submits that the facts mentioneld caused to Ihe petitioner, as suc^, representation to respondent N|o. and 3 hasno objection. oflthe Having heard learned the facts and circumstances on merits ofttie case, the limitecj petitioners appears to be jusf petitioner is allowed to make a No.1 annexing a copy of the insfi from today and in turn, V^ representation of the petitioner of its receipt, in an objective points raised by the petitioners), order, in accordance with law. codnsel inslant With the direction aforesal Parties are entitled for cettified copy of this order. t)l<lf<'1<fl-l •<l*fCT)"ffte<^t'<RltAK ^iaif^iTsn^r exigency. Lastly, learned counsel in the petitioner highlights the injustice , the petitioner may be allowed to make a >.1 to which counsel for respondents 1,2 for the parties and having regard to case, without expressing any opinion prayer laid by the learned counsel for the fair and reasonable. Therefore, the [detailed representation to the respondent writ petition within a period of ten days fe respondent No.1 shall decide the (vithin a period of thiriy days from the date [manner, consideripg and examining the on its own merit and pass appropriate d, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd.<- L.C. Bhaaoo Judge (-fl^y^) '<K