f->. C^itf^. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) N0. ^S3% / 2009 PETITIONER Ajay Kumar Sharma, son of late Lakhanlal Sharma, aged about 51 years, presently posted as Assistant Revenue Inspector, Nagar Panchayat, Balodaa district Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS '/" ^ .^^' 1) State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Urban . Administration Development Department, D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ^•' ^'^' ^' : ^) Under Secretary, y>¥^ / Administration ^" 3) Department, Raipur (C.G.) Commissioner, Administration Departnient, Raipur (C.G.) Urban Development D.K.S.Bhawan, Urban Developinent D.K.S.Bhawan, 4) 5) Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, District Bijapur (C.G.) Sheetalchand Jain, in-charge C.M.0., Nagar Panchayat, Bijapur, District Bijapur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HjGH_COURTOFCHHATTiSGARH_:,BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITJQN (S) N0.4598 OF 2009 Ajay Kumar Sharma Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others Gowri AA/rit Petition under Articie 226 ot'the Constitution of fndia) Singte Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. Aanihotri, J. Present:- Shri P.R. Patankar, counsei forthe petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Pane! Lawyer for the State. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsei for the respondent No.5. ORDER(ORAU (Passed on this 10th day of Februar^, 2010) 'f 1) VVith the consent of learned counsei appearing for the parties, . the petition is heard finaiiy. '' 2) . The petitioner has fiied this petition challenging .the order dated 6-8-2009. Bv vlrtue of the interim order dated 25-8-2009 • passed by this Coyrt, the petltioner js continuing at the original piace of posting. No effect couid be given to the impugned order dated 6-8-2009; due to the interim order dated 25-8-2009. 3) Be that as 31 may, with the passage of tlme this petition has become infructuous, as the period of transfer Is not applicable forever. At this point of time, 'rt is not necessary to exarnlne the JeQaiity-and vsiidlty of the-impuaned. order. However, the respondent authorities are at liberty to pass approprlate orders keeplng in view the public interest and administrative exigency, without insisting on compliance ofthe Impugned order. 4) In view of foregolng, the v/rit petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge