^ SINGtE BEWCR BEFORE THE H1GH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ( CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETSTION (S ) N0. M %6€ / 20t[ PISTITIONER l^^> MSS^^ ^.^n>^'" RamNareshTandon,aged about 45 years, Son of late Shri Sukram, resident QfQtr.No. 20-E, Street No.32, Sector 10, Bhiiai, District Durg (CG). ^ ^o- ^^- v^-<"" RESPQNDENTS VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Revenue, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur Chhattisgarh 2, The Cotlector, Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. The Tehsildar, Patan, District-Durg( C G ), 4. Nilkamal Soni, Son of not know to the petitioner,; Patwari, Hatka No.45, Achod, Tahsii Gunderdehi, Djstrict Durg(CG), VVR!T PETITION UNDcR ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF SNDIA. ^J- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : Bl LASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.4868^)F 201J PETITIONER Ram Naresh Tandon Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 25th day ofAugust, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to chajienge the legality and validity of the order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/10) whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Patwari Halka No.4, Panhanda, Tahsil Patan to Patwari Halka No.45 Achod, Tahsil Gunderdehi, District Durg. 3. On going through the record, it is apparent that the impugned order dated 15-7-2011 (Annexure - P/10) page 36 of the petition has been passed by the Collector (Land Records) Durg, but the petitioner has not impleaded the Collector (Land Records), Durg, as party/respondent, whereas he impleaded the Collector, Raipur as party/respondent No.2 without any rhyme or reason. On further perusat it is also found that in the petition the petitioner has discussed about the joining of Rajesh Sharma (respondent No.5), but in the cause title there is no such respondent No.5. The petitioner has impleaded other respondents, but not in a proper manner. ^r<^ f IBI& 1 4. Even otherwise, the petitioner has not challenged the impugned transfer order on any other permissible legal ground i.e. exercise of mala fide or viotation of any statutory rules or regulations or lack of competence of the officer, passing the impugned order. 5. In view of foregoing, without going into the merits of the case, the petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself, on the ground of non-joinder of proper parties. -\\. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge