Slngte Bench IN THE HON'BLE HI6H COURT OF CHHATnSGAW^r BILASPUR fC.6.) Writ Petition (5) No.^ ^ & t? of 2011 PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENTS :1. ^" .^-- "~"-~^1 •.^•QWKi/^\ /'y'^-'-'^^ /'•Sy^ ^ f <;-l &8., i-t ^^ ^••Q^'' ••:\/' "fV;" Laxmi Kumar Jangdey, aged about 34 years, S/o Shri Sadhram Jangdey, R/o Village-Bartunga, Tahsil-Sarangarh, t)istrict-Raigarh (C.&.) State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Panchayat & Rural Development Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.&.) 2. The Collector, Raigarh (C.6.) 3. . The Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Office of Development Commissioner, Development Building, Raipur (C.6.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Rural Engineering Services, Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (C.6.) 5.~ Chief Executive Officer, Jnapad Panchayat, Sarangarh, District-Raigarh (c.e.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PAKTlCULAftS OF THE PETITIONER :- As stated above in cause titte: 2. PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS As stated above in cause title. '1\ ;l ,1- '•: < 3. PARTICULARS OR ORDER A&AWSJ WW.CH PETITTON 15 MADE:- Order dated Passed by^ /" 15.07.2011 Respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P/l) :/',^S8W?<% /yr^ ~ <a / "s/ iOi&il \s.\ v ^^w •^^^ ^' - /.^ L^^ "Vijay Dewangan, posted as Sub Eagineer, Rural, Engiaeeriag Services, Janpad Panchyat, Charghoda, District- Raigairfc (C.G.) ]? ^ .'\ \' ^•^'''^ PETiTIONER HiGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : BiLASFUR WRIT PETITiON (S) N0. 4464 OF 2011 Laxmt Kumar Jangdev \S1 RESPONDENTS versus State of Chhatiisgarh & Othsrs (Writ Petition under Articte 226 of the Constitutlon of india) Singie Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri H.S. Patei, Advocate r'or the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panei Lawyer for ihe Stats. ORDER (ORAL1 (Passed OR thls 2.4 day of August, 2011) 1. Leamed counsei aDpearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, working as Sub Englneer; Janpad Panchayat Sarangarh, has been transferred to janoad Panchavat Dharamjaiaam vide ora'er dateci 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) stating itto be on his own request. !n fact, the petitionar never made sny appiication for transfsr from his iarssent piace of oostins. Learned counsei appsaring for the State respondents submits that, if it is so, appropriate order shaii be passed for correcting ths defects in the liiipugnsd order, as pointed out by the petitioner. Ti!l then, the impugned order dated 15.07.2011 (Annexure P-1) shaii not be given sffact to in resoect of the oetitioner. !n view of the above, according to iearned counse! appearing for the Detitioner, nothing survives for adiudicatjon in this matter. Accordingiy, the writ petitlon stsnds disposed of. .<!. :.^^ L'tsV»- ^^^ s«USB^^ 3S.1-; .^'"siaiasBS^^^.^,,^^^;^,^.^^