^-i^M 'sisssai '^.'^ ^ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0.6932/2009 PETITJONER RESPONDENTS li^- ii Ramkesh Tripathi, S/o Late Shri Awadhesh Prasad Tripathi, aged about 43 years, R/o Near Joda Peepai, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) Versus ,»1 State of Chhattigarh, Through: Secretary, Revenue & Aapda Prabhandhan Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur(C.G.) 2 Coilector (Land Records), Ambikapur, Surguja District Surguja (C.G.) 3 Commissioner, Land Records, :Chhattlsgarh, :RaJpur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4 Tahsildar, Ambikapur, District Surguja(C.G.) 5 Sub-Divisional .Offjcer, Ambikapur, District. Surguja (C.G.) 6 Revenueinspector, Ambikapur, District8urguja(C.G.) 7s Gayaram Singh, Patwari Halka No.5, Tahsildar Ambikapur, DistrictSurguja(C.G.) WR5T.PETITEON UNDERARTICE 226 OF THECONSTSTUtiON^F iNDIA Appearance: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri A.V.Shridhar, Panel La^/yer for the State/respondents No.1 to 6 on advance copy. u^ (26.11.2009) SUNIL KUMARSiNHA^L Heard cn admission. ^ shyna W.P.fS) N0.6932/2009 Petitioner Ramkesh Tripathi, who is working on the post of Paft/van", has filed this petition chailenging ihe order dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Sub Divislonai Ofricer, by which, he has been dlrected to. work as Patwarl in P.H. No.13, Revenue Cirde Ambikapur-1 and respondent No.7 has been dlrected to work in P.H. No.4, Revenue Circle Ambikapur -1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been transferred vide order dated 03.10.2009 (Annexure P/2) from Ramanujnagar to Ambikapur. Hesubmits that the petltioner was posted at P.H. No.4 -SakaSo, but by the impugned order, now, he has been directed to vvork in. P.H. No.13 and res.pondent No.7 has been directed to worE< in P.H.No.4. He aiso submlts that tlils has been done for accommodation of respondent No.7 in P.H. No,4. He further submlts that the Sub Dlvisional Officer has no jurisdlction to such an order. I do not find any substance in the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner. The impugned order (Annexure P/1) itseif shows that on account of transfer of various Pat/vans, the Sub Divislonal Officer has this locai arrangement in:the same Revenue Cirde l.e.-Revenue. Circle Arnbikapur-1 and has directed for iooking after the work by the and fr^'0 other Pa^yans.of different CJrcies. Uniess the order is shown to be vitiated by maiafides or extraneous considerations or It Is shown to be passed against any Statutory Ruie or the Act, the said arrangements made by the Sub Divislonal Officer at t'ne locai levei cannot be interfered by this Court. it appears thatthe arrangements made by the Sub Divisionai Officer in the same Circle i.e. Revenue Circle Amibkapur-1 was well within hisjurisdiction. ! do not flnd any illegality or infirmlty in the order passed by the Sub DEvisiona! Officer. The has no rnerit. The same is iiabie to be dismlssed and Is hereby'dismissed summarily. . ^—~~~——-~'••'''''••^'''•^^^^^^^^^^^ t./:-;'.':l, .. ^ISd/-' SuiulKumarSinha L Judge H>-