3?. s> IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP. (S)NO. H<?<5A ' . /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ^ 1. l^^.. ^^$K '^••••••;'< I.Aw >-<"^^ Arun Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Nanki Ram Patel, aged about 36 years, Occupation Patwari, presently working at P.H.No. 08, Achankpur, Dist. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) ISUS State of Chhattisgarh TUrough Secretary Department Of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (CG) 2. r3; District Collector, Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) Sub-divisional Officer (Revenue) Sub-Division Sakti District-Janjgir-Champa(C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRTT IN THE NATURE OP MANDAMUS. PROHIBITION. CERTIORARI_^[kC. QR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THB MATTER 7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4996 OF 2010 PETITIQNER Arun Kumar Patel RESPONDENTS 1. 2. Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. O RD E R (Passed on this 14th day of October, 2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By order dated 18-2-2010 (Annexure - P/3) the petitioner was transferred from Patwari Halka No.11 Sakti to Patwari Halka No.8 Achanakpur. The petitioner executed the said order and joined at Achanakpur. Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 27-8-2010 (Annexure ~ P/1), the earlier order of transfer has been cancelled and it has been directed that the petitioner will join at Patwari Halka No.11 Sakti. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at Patwari Halka No.8 Achanakpur for more than 13 months on account of interim order dated 1-9-2010 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest, administrative exigency. Learned counsel further submits that the State/ respondents shall not insist upon compliance ofthe impugned order dated 27-8-2010. It is accordingly ordered. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 27-8-2010 on account ofthe interim order dated 1-9-2010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 27-8-2010, in the facts ofthe case. In view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing sun/ives in this petition for adjudication atthis stage. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. 3. 4. 5. 6. <^>. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge