SSngleBench ^c.P.K^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) NO.&O^^ /201 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS :Smt. V. Rajput W/o Dhajaram Rajput Aged about 48 years Working as LhlV, Sector Hardikala, Community hlealth Centre, Block- Bilha, Dist- Bilaspur R/o- Near Jyoti Provision Store, Vikash Nagar, Bilaspur Versus 1) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department of Public Health & Family Welfare, Mantralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Dist- Raipur (C.G) ^ 2) Directorate Health Services Directorate Health & Family Welfare, Purana Nursing Hostel, Mantralya Campus, Raipur (C.G.) ^3) Collector, Bilaspur, Dist- Bilaspur. 4) Chief Medical & Health Officer Bilaspur, Dist- Bilaspur. .5) Block Medical Officer, Sector- Hardikala, Bilha, Bilaspur z ^ 6) Smt. S. Virki W/o P.T. Virki Aged about 56 years Working as LHV, Sector Hardikala, Community Health Centre, Block- Bilha, Dist- Bilaspur WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A SUITABLE WRIT ORDER OF DIRECTION TQDO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER. ^ RESPONDENTS HiGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITiON (S) No,6Q64_QF2_Q:ll Smt. ¥„Rajput Versus State of Chhattlsgarh & Ot'ners (Writ Petltion under Articie 226 of the Constitution of India) Slngle Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satisn K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.S.Ahluwaiia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on this 13th day of October, 2011) 1. 2. Chaiienge in this pstition is to the order dated 15th Juiy, 2011 (Annexure P-1), passed by the Collector, B'ilaspur, whereby, the petitioner v^orklng as LHV (Ladles Health Vlsitor) at Sector Hardikala, Community Heaith Centre,. Biock Bil.ha, Bilaspur. has been transferred to Sector Khudla, Community Heaith Centre, Biock Lormi, Biiaspur. ;^-; On perusal of the record, it appears that the petltioner has challenged theimpugned transfer order byraislng certain allegations against the respondent authorities. The contentlbn of the petitJoner is that the impugned order has been passed oniy to accommodate the respondent No.6. Earlier, the petitioner preferred a petition being W.P.(S) No.5378 of 2011 (Smt V. Rajput v. State of Chhattlsgarh & Others) chailenging the same order dated 15.07.2011. The sald writ petitlon was dlsmlssed as withdrawn by order dated 12.09.2011 with llberiy to make a representatlon. According to the petitioner, in compjiance of the said order, the petltioner made a representation before the Collector, Biiaspur, on 16.09.2011 (Annexure P-13), but the same has not been considered and decided tiii date. Thus, this petltion. ^ Without walting for reasonable tlme for a declsion of the rsspondent authorities, the petitiQner preferred thls petition on 10th,0ctober, 2011. The petltjoner ought to have waited for some reasonable tlme. When the appiications/ representations are pending consideration before the respondent authorities, there is no occasion to entertain a second parallet proceeding under Article 226 of the Constltution of India. Be that as it may, law in thls regard Is well settled that a statutory representatlon or appeai has to be decided wlthin a reasonable tlme i.e. within 3 to 6 months. A seven Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, In S.S.Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh , obs©n/edas under: se17. Redressai of gnevances in the hand^ of the an unduty long tlme. That is so on account of the act that no aUentlon is ordinaniy bestowed over these maners and they are not considered to be governmental buslness of suhstance. Thls approach has to be deprecsted &nd authontses on whom pow&r is vested to dfspose of and revisions the Sen/ice Ruie^ must of such as expedltiousty as possibie. Ordmarity, a of three ta six months shouid be rhe iimiL That wouid disdpline the system and . keepthe pubiic servsnt away from a profrBcted period of litigation/f 5. Appiylng the vveli settled princlpie of law to the facts of the case on hand, the petltion is dlsmissed at the motlon stage itseif. ashok sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge (1988)4SCC582