'<?' •:\ fflGHCOCICTt>FJUIHCATtJ[RECHHAa^SGAim:^BHA^^ Single Bench: Hon'ble SIui Satish K. Agiiihotri, 3. W.P.No.U8»OE3003 Petitioner : AstiokRumalMaTl^SAshriP^Matl^ \ ag/ed aboiit 34 yea-s,; "Occupation T^sS^ Tehsildar, Deepi3caDistrictKOrba<CG) Respondents Vefsus 1. 2. 3. StateQfCllhattisgarhlhrou^iflie Secretary, Department bf Revenue, D.K.S. BI)awan,MaiteaIaya,Raipur(C.G.) TheColteete, Korba,Dish-ictKorba(CG) TehSildat; Korba Tehsil m4 District Korba (CG) ShriShaiIen(baDubey,leamedcounselsfbrfhepetitioner. ., SlmPankaj Shrivastava.IeataedPahel.EawyerfcfrState/respondeats. ORAtfcOBDER 0I">Bet>ruary,2006) v The petitioner, who was working as Nayab Tehsildar at Distt. Koitia was teansferred to EHstt. Daiitewada 1% iIn[>ugneil'flrdCT dated 14,132003 (Atuiexure .p-l)-:''::. : .: ./;:'::': ;:.:.:^ 2. The petitionep;has'?filedtiuspetitioit;Ghatleng^ orderdated 14.1.2003. This Court by order dated 30.4.2003 directed the petitioner to continue on Ihe original place ofpostiag if fhe petitionei' was not relieved.By virtoe of order dated 13.4.2003, tfie petitioner continued to work at fee same place and has been granted fmal reliefby order dated 13.4.2003. Therefore.tt is not necessary at thi8 stage to go into fhe validily of tfae impugied order dated 14.1.M03. The petition has becoms infitlctuous with the passage oftime. Even odierwise, this Court wMe exercising W power un^ .Article 226 and 227 uf Constitotionoflhdiahaslimitedscopemmterfe^gwiAAett the transfer ordercould notbe given effeetto byviriue ofinterimorderpasgedby its Court, the petitioher hasalready fceeft g-anted final relie£ Btffie facts of.tiie case, the respcudents/auAerities are directed not t6 insist on compliance of fhe impugned toulsfer prder. . ' 3. For the reasons stateiKadove, tte mnt petitian is distnissedias Baving^ become m&uctuous. Noorderastdeosts. i Sd/- Sadsh