,Q’ / BEFORE THE HIGH COURT CHHATTISGARH. OF JUDICATURE > AT BILASPUR _, T‘ / WRIT PETITION N0. 7 4~4f /2004 PETITIONER / LakhpatiNayak, S/o ShriKunar s, R/o x3 3$7H ,D ”i.....uw"8”[b.~5, §wik ‘Hif‘apur, NaXak, aged Raipur Veersawakar about (0(1) 50 year Nagar, {l ‘ . 3 1. Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Vipnan Board, Old Ganj Mandi, Campus, Raipur. C.G. -The Secretary Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipnan Board, Old Ganj Mandi Campus, Raipur (CG) The Deputy Director, C.G. Rakya Vipnan Board, Jagdalpur , f/ PETITION UNDER SECTION 226 227 OF OF WRIT THE IN CONSTITUTION NATUREOF OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE AND/ OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE MANDAMUS/CERCEORI NATURE. ' W / / M . E XI—HC-22 WW, m,W Wm Lo? ..................... W» ELA/Aigl} 200 ............................. 1 . .W ............................. WW mm mm mmmtw WWEwW %a%wan%31 V, 8.7.2005 Peiih'oner by‘Shri Ash k Soni, Advocate. Respondents by Shri anbir Singh Ma'rhas, Advocate. Heard. This is a petition, dle under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, chall nging the onier dated 6.2.2004 whereby the petitioner was sfeITed hom the o$ce of the Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi 'pdan Board Raipur to the o$ce. of the Chhattisgarh Rajya. ‘shi‘Vipdan Board, Divisional Head Quarter, Jagdalpur. he petitioner had also dled an application for stay of the transfer order. This Court vide V order dated 6.4.2004 after earing both the parties refused to grant stay of the transfe order. Learned counsel for the \ petin'oner informed that the etih‘oner has not joined the new transferred place of posting. The petitioner in p 5.3 to 5.5 of the petin'on has stated that his transfer rder was not on account of administrative exigency bu due to malande on the part of the respondents. According to the petitioner the services of the petitioner’s son was di missed and the petitioner’s son namely Lucky Nayakvhas d W.P.No. 2924/2003 pending in this Court for considera 'on and no stay was granted in the said that is the has been petition why petitioner tlansferred. 7. (attain) XI—HC-22 The mspondents allegation stating that the as ‘the petitioner has be transferred on the glound of administtaiive exigency. Pe dency of the peu‘tion filed by the son of the petitioner has the petitioner. Having heald n was passed not on the gmu due to some other reaso: exercise of the powers. shall be no order as to costs‘ this petiu'on is dismissed. There thing to do with the tlansfer of nts of both the parties and found that the nansfer order [1d of ,adminisuative exigency but as which amounts to maiafide perusing the record it is In View of the above b. Sd/- sau'sh K. Agnihot'i Judge W a ‘e . .7 was?» e e t