"<-.. ^"fr.- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT (Petitioner in the Wrlt Petition No.1729/2009) WritADpeal No.113/2009 Versus RESPONDENTS 1. (Respondent No.1 inWrit Petition No. 1729/2009) (Respondent No.2inWrit Petition No. 1729/2009) (Respondent No.3inWrit Petition No.1729/2009) Sarit Baran Mitra S/o Shri KC Mitra, aged about 48 years, Resident of LIG 110, Amadi Nagar, HUDCO, Bhilai, District Durg of Chhattisgarh. Presently posted' as Secretary (Senior), Krishih Upaj Mandi Samiti, Nevara, District Raipur of Chhattisgarh Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Marketing Board (Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Vipanan Board) through their Managing Director. Beej Bhawan, Ravi Gram, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur of Chhattisgarh Shri Ramcharan Verma, Secretary (S^nior), Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Kasdol, District RaipurofChhattisgarh The State of Chhattisgarh through their Secretary, Agriculture Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur Chhattisgarh Writ Appeal u/s 2 of the Chhattisaarh Hiah Court (Appeal to Division Benchl Act, 2006 Present: Shri Raj Kamal Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri WS Murthy, Dy AG for the State / respondent No.3. JUDGMENT I (29th April, 2009) ^s^ The following judgment of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Learned counsel for the partiesare heard on admission. 2) Appellant Sarit Baran Mitra has flled this writ appeal against the impugned order dated 15.04.2009, passed in W.P.S.No.1729/2009. 3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the Writ petition for the following reliefs: "10.1 The Hon'bie Court may kindly be pleased to quash the Transfer Order No./B-l / 2-1 /A/ VI / 57 /08-09 / 6584 dated 2nd March 2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by the RespondentNo.1 in respect of the Transfer of this petitjoner & the Respondent No.2. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may please be kind enough in directing the responderts not to transfer this petitioner to any other place without any reasonable requirement or under normal transfer policy oftheCGSAI\4B. 10.3 Any other rellef which this Hon'ble Court deems frt be granted and cost of the petitioner may also kindly be awarded because of the harassment to the petitioner." 4) The petitioner, thus insubstance, was seeking quashing of the order dated 02.03.2009 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner was transferred from Newrato Kasdol. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties did not find any ground warranting interference in the piatter and therefore, "^ ^m Ju ^•:^s^^ dismissed the writ petition vide impugned order dated 15.04.2009. 6) Shri Raj Kamal Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant's order of transfer was bad in law as the same was at the instance of a Member of Legislative Assembly of Baloda Bazar Constituency. 7) Learned Singte Judge considered the above submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner in para 4 of the impugned order which reads as follows : "Para 4 The allegation of mala ftde that on the basis of instructions of a Member of Legislative Assembly, Baloda Bazar, this order has been passed, no documents in support of this contention has been produced. However, even if it is assumed that the same was done at the instance of the Merriber of Legislative Assembly, it has been hetd by the Supreme Court in Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs State of UP and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150 as under: "...... In our opinion, even if the allegation of the appellant is correct that he was transferred on the recommendation of an MLA, that by itself would not vitiate the transfer order. ABer all, it is the duty of the representatives of the people in the legislature to express the grievances of the people and if there is any complaint against an official the State Government is certainfy within its jurisdiction to transfer such an employee. There can be no hard-and-fast rule that every transfer at the instance ofan MP or MLA would be vitiated. It all ^ ^ depends on the facts and,circumstances of an individual case......:." .f9 ^s f,^* ':-;^c'^tSi ^./. '^•.s:.':^ 4 Learned Single Judge, therefore, following the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs State of UP and others, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 150, repelled the above contentions. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order and the dictum ofthe Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Masood Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), we do not find any tnfirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeal. 9) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '^;