HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIU^PUR DIVISION BENCH APPELLANT PETITIONER: Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. V»RrrAPPEAL NoA9 of 2009 Panna Lal Nag, S/o. Shri Matadin Nag, AgecL.gAbouf 50 yeare, Occupatlon—Seroice, Posted ee Sub tnspe^or, at Police StaUon Narharpur, Dlstt. - Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS RESPQNDENTS 1. The State of Chhatlisgarh, through the Secretary Department of Home, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Buikllng, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Director General of Police, State of Chhatttegarh, Civil Llnes, Ralpur (C.G.) 3. Inspector Genwal cX Pdtee, Police Head Quarter Pdiee Une, Ratpur, Distt. - Raipur (CG) 4. Superintendent of Police Kanker, Distt. - KSinker (C.G.) WRrr APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 (11 OF THE CHHATTBGARttHtGHGOURriftPPEAI.-PODBfflSlOhl BENCtftACT.2006 Present: Shri Manoj Paranjpe, leamed counsd for the appellant. Shri Sumesh Bajaj, l^med Govemment Advocatefor the Stat^respcmdents. JUDGftmENT (19th February, 2009) The following judgment of the Gourt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J^ Learned counsel ftwthe parti^ are hearel onadmisston. ^'"'wm VA^ 2 c: 2. Appeltant/petltioner- Pamia Lal Nag has fited this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 23.01.2009, passed in W.P. (8) No.432/2009. 3. AppellanVpetlUoner - Panna Lal Nag fitel the writ petilion for the followlng rellefe: "1 That this Hon'ble Court may Idndly be pteasect toissueawritJnthenatureofGerttoi'aFi by quashing the order impugned dated 27.12.2)08 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by the Respondent in the representatton of ttie petitioner. 2 That this Hon'ble Court may klfdly be pteased to direct the responctents to producettie all relevant record from the possession of the respondents regarding the service record of tee petitioner for kind pemsal of this Hon'ble Court. 3 That this Hon'bte Court mayldndtydirect fflie respondents to po^ the petttloner in general dlstrict in place of nexual affecfed district considering his 25 yeare service. 4 Any other relief, whteh thls Hm'ble Court may deem ftt and proper, may atso be passed In favour of the pet»ionertogether wlth heavy cosl of the petition." 4. The petitioner, thus !n substance, was seekli^quashh'igof the ofder dated 27.12.2008 whereby the petffioner's representation against hls transfer was re|ected. 5. LeamedSingleJudgeonathoroughconsideration<rfthe rival submlssionsof teamed counsel for the parti^ did not flnd any ground warrantlng interference in the mertter of the petittoner's transfer and therefore, dlsmissed the writ petltion vkle impugned orderdated 23.01.2009. 6. ShriManoj Paranjpe, leamedcounsel for ttie appellant vehemenlly argued that the authortties white considering and tv—— ^b subbu rejecting the petltioner's r^resentation have not given due weight to the grounds taken by the petltioner in hls representation. 7. On due consicteration of the aibmlssions of teamed counsel Tor the parties, we do not find any inflrmtty in the impugned order whleh may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 8. The writ appeal, tlierefore, is liabte to be dtemiSMd and is hereby dismissed summarily. - Sd/- ChiefJustfee Sdl- SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge I'^l