^l^B^ •^'^^ ^SB-- a^ lo-^_^ @ IN THE mGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WMT PETITION (S) N0. /2010 o J» ^ ,K' ?t*"^ -—^ '•^s. /,^ Bilsan Kujur, S/o- Late Shri Mohan Kujur, Aged about 50 years, Presently working as Executive Engineer, Division-Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. StateofChhattisgarh, Through- Secretary/Deputy Secretary, Deptt. ofPublic Works, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Shri Lalit Walter Tirki, S6- Not knowa to the Petitioner, Aged about- Not known to fhe Petitioner, Presently working as Assistant Engineer, Promoted as Executive Engineer, In the office ofNational Roadways Sub Division-Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE . NATURE OF MANDAMUS. CERTIORARI ETC. 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER. As mentioned in the cause title. '<s. . HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETSTION (S) N0.6093 OF 2010 PETiTIONER Bilsan Kujur Versus State of Chhattissarh & Another (Writ Petition under Articie 226 of the Constltution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Ag,"ihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pankaj' Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panei Lawyer for the State. Shri Suresh Pandey, Advocate for the respondent No.2. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 31st day of March, 2011) 1. Heard iearned counsei for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge She legality and vaiidiSy of the order dated 14/10/2010 (Annexure P/1) by which the petitioner has been transferred from Jashpur to Ambikapur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has aiready continued at the originai place of posting for more than 5 months On account of interim order dated 23/10/2010 granted bythis Court. The State/respondent may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view pubite interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsei further submits that the State/respondent shaii not insist upon compiiance of the impugned order dated 14/10/2010 (Annexure P/1). It is accordingiy ordered. 4. Since no effect couid be given to the impugned order dated 14/10/2010 (Annexure P/1) on account of the interim order dated 23/10/2010, it is not necessary to go into the tegatity and vatidity of the impugned prder dated 14/10/2010 (Annexure P/1), in the facts ofthe case. 5. in view of ths above, according to ieamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 6. Accordinalv, the writ petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Arun