3mm 35m; ;? (agm’aZf IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. :j ‘3 SRL /2010 PETITIONER Rekhraj Singh Sahu S/o Late Shri Kanshi Ram Sahu, aged about '55 years, Forest Guard, posted at Kishanpur Beat/ Nursery Kishanpur, Range Pithora, Forest Divisional Mahasamund Distt Mahasamund (c.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh through The‘Secretary, Forest Department D.K.S. Bh‘awan Raipur (C.G.) The Conser'ilator of Forest. Circle Raipur; Lsistrict Raipur (C.G.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Mahasam‘aind Distt Mahasamund (C.G.) Sub’ Divisional Officer(Forest), Pithora, “District Mahasamund (co) Range ' fffficer, Forest Range Fithora,‘ ”District Mahasamund (C.G;) I 7 t « RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITKON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HXGH COURT OF CHHAT’I‘ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0. 7352 0f2010 Rekin‘aj Si11g'h Sahu. VERSUS RESE’ONDENTS : State of Chhattisgarh & Others. FETiTiONER WRIT PE’E‘I’HON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSrI‘ITUTION OF INDIA SB: }{{m’§)§e $1111 Satisii K. Agnihotri J. V Fresent: Shri S.K.Dadsena{ Advocate fer the petitioner. Shri AV.Shrkihaag Pans} Lawyer for the State/res;mi1dents. wRma‘R (GRAL) (Passed 0n 015i {33y ofFebmary, 201 1) Chaiienge in this petition is to the order tiated 31.7.2010 (Amaxure P/l) whereiw the petitioner has been aske(§ to take relieving from the origina1 place of posting and proceed to join the new piaoe of posting purSuant to the order dated 15.7.2010 whereby the petitioner was transferred fromvRange, Pithora, Forest Bivision Mahasamund to Range Waérafnagar, Forest Division North Surglja, atongwith 17 other persons, ’2. ieamed‘ counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the getitioner has not made any application for his transfer. Thus, the orrier dated 15.07.2010 transferring the petitioner from one place to another. is without any basis. i Be that as it may, since the order dated 15.7.2010 is not under ehaltenge in this petition therefore, it camtot be examined asto whether the the ofthe petitioner, or or same was passedvon request on administrative exigency. The reiieving order dated 31.07.2010, pursuant 1:9 the arder (iated 15.7.2010 cammt be hcld as Vitiaie& on any account. Thus, the petition deserves t0 be and is accordingly iiigmissed. Hawever. if the petitioner has any grievance with regardlto his transfer which 1o ailegec? to have been made Without any request, the petitioner is at liberty to make appropriate application to the au’thorities concemed for redressal of his grievance, and in the event an appiication is made, the same may be considered and appropriate order may be passed by the respondent authorities, in accordance with law. s‘ , Sd/_ i Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ‘\L