^^Y^^^ ^ ,^^1*^---' Slly^ y^ y^- .S.,5 ^^- ^ ^ ^^ \ ^~&- IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGASRH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 5^ /2009. Petitioner: Vinod Tamboli, S/o late Shri Samela, Aged about 48 years, occupation - Service, presently posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 23, Tifra, Revenue Circle, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). Versus Respondents: ^ ^^ ^^ ^' / 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department ofRevenue. Mantralaya, D. K. S. Bhavan, Raipur (CG) -- 2. Collector, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (CG). / 3. Sub Divisional Officer(Revenue) Bilaspur (CG). 4. Shri Vijay Bharat Sahu, S/o Shri S. R. Sahu, aged about 33 Years, occupation - service, Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 14 Penderwa, District Bilaspur(CG) 5. Shri Hemant Patanwar, occupation - service, posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka No. 30, Sirgitti, District Bilaspur (CG). .^/.f.. _._ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE^27 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. v\ HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.95 OF 2009 PETITIONER VinodTamboli RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226/227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Pallav Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Baj'aj, Govt. Advocate forthe State. Shri Saleem Kazi, Advocateforfhe respondent No.4. ORDER<ORAL) (Passed on this 12th day of December, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge thelegality and validity ofthe order dated 15-12-2008 (Annexure - P/1) passed by the respondent No.1. 3. Since the impugned order dated 15-12-2008 was passed by the respondent No.1 in compliance ofthe orders passed by this Court, it is not necessary to quash the said order. However, it is made clear that if the presence of the petitioner at the place for which status quo was granted by this Court vide order dated 19-2-2009, creates problem, the State may transfer the petitioner to some other place in administrative exigency as well asin pubiic interest. 4. In view of foregoing, according to the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. Gowri Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge