<-< IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATHSGARHl WRrrpErmo^o.'s23& OP 2005 pErmoNER /:)"AS'^"L-, ;^! /2'''//a%^?fa.--^'Y^ .. ..-./%£^€---'"' f£^^^" ^s°>'...••-•" a&--"' RESPONDENTS Mathura Prasad Kashyap, aged 50 years, Son of Bedilal Kashypa, Occupation-Service, Presently woridng as Revenue Inspector Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.). VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.). 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Revenue, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.). 3. The Commissioner, (Land Records), Raipur (C.G.). 4. The Coltector, District Bilaspur, (C.G.). WRFT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTTrUTIOM OF INDIA XI-HC-22 3^ •<(I<<IM<I, aifly'Ko, fEldiyy &ii^i Mach i ^ *^^te-.^-F.^..-^OSob (Slfc.A St' sn^rERr Rl'fi+sn^r yhWfi ww V- I-.. 9<i^is«tiWBfer Heard Shri Bhaskar Payashi, Shri Ashutosh Kachhawaha, on advance copy, By thjs writ petition, the petiti 2006 passed by respondent No.2 w from Kota District Bilaspurto Raigarh Ttie main contention of lear petitioner is the offfcer of District Cac kounsel for the petitioner. povt. Advocate for the State/respondents, [sner has questioned the order dated 30-6- ![iereby the petitioner has been transferred !hed counsel for the petitioner is that the |re and the petitioner cannot be transferred outofthedistrict. Learned counsel for the p^tittoner submitted that the petitioner has aiready made a representation on 3.| been donesofar. Learned counsel for the pet] may be al!owed to make a detaited r| directed to decide the same to whiij objection. Having heard learned couns^ and circumstances of the case, and of the case, We petitioner is allowed copy of this petition and relevant do( of 15 days and in tum respondent the petitioner vi/ithin a period of] representation, in accordance w/ith reiievect, if he has already not reiiev^ With the direotion aforesaid, | Consequently, M.(W.)P. No.^ Parties are entitled Tor certifi^d copy ofthis order. qil<llfl41-1 WRJYft"fe'<il(RlWK ^sri^ffsn^r 7.2006 to respondent No.1 but nothing has tioner further submitted that the petitioner 'presentation to respondent No.1 and he be h learned counsel Tor respondents tias no for the parties, having regard to the^facts 'A'ithout expressing any opinion on the'merit :o make a detailed representation along with ;uments to respondent No.1 within a period 4o.1 is directed to deoi'de representation of 30 days from the date of receipt of aw. Till then, the petitioner should not be j. :. ihe petition stands disposed of, )7/2006 also stands disposed of. Sd/- - L.C.Bbadoo Judge