' c (@“ufv‘ BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO. §\U\O\ [2010 PETITIONER P.K. Sahu S/o. K. K. Sahu, aged abdut— 51 years, Currently posted at Green Hunt Operation, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through:- Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, D‘KS Bhawan, Raipur (C‘G.) Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3. Chairman, Police Establishment Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4. Inspector General of Police (Admn.), Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 5. inspector General of Police (Naxal Operation), Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA 69’ 9 M HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ETSGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETIWON {SmQgZlégQféZQm Peiitioner RK. Sahu Versus Resmndent ¥ State of Chhattisgar‘h 8: others. WRW PETlTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUT)ON OF INDIA (SB : Hon‘ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihoui, J.) Present :- Ms. Naushina Afrin Ni, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Moonhy. Deputy Advocate Genera! with Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDERELRAL} {Passed an 4‘“ Day sf May, 20w) Heard leaned connsel for the parties. 1. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was pos’ted as Stat§on House Officer, Poliee Station‘ Rajim, Distric-Raipur. Without compietion of two years of posting at Poiice $ration, Rajim, by order dated 07111-2069 (Annexure PH) ihe petitioner was transferred to Bijapor, which is against the provisions prescribed under Section i4 of ihe Chhatiisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short “Act, 2007") Section 14 of the Act, 2007 provides that in case of administrative exigency, if the same is recorded in writing or on the request of the empioyee, the bar of two years may be iifte’d. in the case on hand. ieamed counsei tor the petitioner submitsthat there is no request on the part oi the petitioner and if, it was a case of administrative exigency, there was nothing recorded in writing to make reasons for transferring the petitioner after taking recourse to sub-section (2) of Section i4 of the Act, 2007. f1. Ms. Naushina Afrin Aii, iurther submits that being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an apseai under the $0 pmvisions of Section 22 of the Act, 2607 to the D§¥ector Generai of PoHce, Poiice Headquarter, Raipur, on 12.11.2009 {Annexure PM} Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 provides for consideration and disposal of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of order. 90 days have iapsed; the Poiice Eetabiishment Board has not passed any order. it appears that the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been violated at two places i.e. firstly, ‘ whiie passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and secondly. by not considering the appeallrepresentation within 90 days, which is statutory prescribed limit. At his juncture, Shri Moorthy, learned counset torthe State, submits that the pending sweat/representation of the petitioner, before the Poiice Estabtishment Board. the same shaii be considered and decided within a period of i4 days. in View of foregoing, without examining the merits of the case, the Dtrector Generai of Police/respondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeai/representation oi the petitioner within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt 0t a copy of this order. Accordingiy, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made, ciear that tiii disposal of the appeal/representation. the impugned order dated 0?..112009 (Annexure P/t), passed in respect of the petitioner. shail not be diven etiect to ._._/ Sd/- SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Arun