........?^&^ '^^^"" ^- s?a8"i ?•"',-,-.. ^s^^S fj" fa?^'?I;?.*it?! ^' ^S^iL ^aW^-""" i—-0~/ IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF JUbICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.} WRIT PETmON f S ) N0. •^3- ^~ OF 2009 PETITEONER : Lakhamu Ram Sodhi S/o. Shri Dokhu Ram Sodhi aged about 37 Years, Occupation - Service, Posted as Patwari at Halka No. 13 Makdi, Tahsil Makdi. Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.6.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary Revenue Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector , Jagdalpur, Distt.- Jagdalpur (C.&.) WRIT PETITCON UNDER ARTECLES 226 OF THE CONSTCTUTION OF INMA FOR ISSUEANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Wrlt Petition (Sl No. 5837 of 2009 Lakhamu Ram Sodhi VERSUS The State of Chhattisgarh & another WRIT_ PET!TIQN_ _UNDER_ARTICLE_226_ QF_THE CQNSTITU'LIQN OFJNDIA (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Dr. Sanjeet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms Smita Ghai, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. Heard. O R D ER (Oral) (Passed on this 8th day of October, 2009) 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 1.10.2009 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Collector, Jagdalpur i.e. Respondent No.2. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was transferred at the present place of posting i.e. Patwari Halka No. 13 Makdia, Tahsil Makdi, District Jagdalpur about one year and six months before. Within a short period of about one year and 6 months, by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009, the petitioner has been transferred to Patwari Halka No. 19, Boregaon, Tahsil - Farasgaon. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/State submits that by the impugned order dated 1.10.2009 as many as 67 Patwaris have been transferred and posted, looking to the administrative exigency and public interest. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel relies on a Circular dated 29.8.2009 (Annexure P/2), wherein it is stated that a list of all the Patwaris, who are working for the last five years be prepared and sent so that the steps can be taken for 'their placement. 5. I have heard leamed counsel for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. On perusal of the circular dated 29.8.2009, I do not find that there is any -^b'SjfeC ."^£fe. y"'•"§''% '^s1... t •:'5;:'.»^ s "ft i s. Sf Si ^~€^r South Central Railway, Secundarabad & Others v. G. Jiatnain & Others6) 9. Even otherwise, there is no challenge to the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal grounds as afore-stated, warranting interference with the impugned transfer order. 10. For the reasons as afore-stated, the petition is dismissed. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge