C46?)ab7/ v BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. $3M 1201b ' . PETITIONER Pratipal Singh, aged about 47'years, S/o. late Shri Kunwa Singh, Currently posted ‘at Bastar Zone Naxal Operation, Base Camp Lohattar, District— Kanker (C.G.).‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS / 1.“ State of Chhattisgarh, Through:— the Secretary, Department of Home, Mantralaya, DKS Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) ~2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh /3. Chairman, Police Establishment Board, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Inspector General o'f Police (Admn.), Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ’ 5. inspector General of Police (Naxal Operation), Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226, OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER(S) As mentioned in the cause title. % HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) INO.13O4 OF 2010 PETITIONER Pratipal Singh Versus ESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :‘- Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri V.V.S. Murthy, Dy. Adv. General with Shri P.K. Bhduri, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER gORAL) (Passed on this 28'“ day of April, 201 O) Heard learned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as Station House Officer, Police Station, Kharora, District Raipur. Without completion of two years of posting at Police Station, Kharora, by order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexure — P/1) the petitioner was transferred from Raipur to Narayanpur, which is against the provisions prescribed under Section 14 of the Chhattisgarh Police Act, 2007 (for short “Act, 2007”). 2. 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 employee, the bar of two years may be lifted. ln the case on hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no request on the part cf the petitioner and if, it was a case of administrative exigency there was nothing recorded in Writing stating reasons for transferring the petitioner after taking recourse to sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act, 2007. Shri Dangi, further submits that being aggrieved by the impugned \ pro’visions transferaworder; of Section the petitioner 22 of preferred the Act, an 2007 appeal to the under Ponce the \ I;\\\Establishment Board on 12-1 1-2009. \\. R Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 prdvides for consideration and disposal of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of order. 90 days have lapsed; the Police Establishment Board has not passed any order. lt appears that the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been violated at two places i.e‘ first/y, while passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and second/y; by not considering the appeal! representation within 90 days, which is statutory prescribed limit. 6. At this juncture, Shri Murthy, learned Dy. Adv. General appearing with Shri Bhaduri, learned l5anel Lawyer. submits that the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner, before the Police Establishment Board, the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 14 days. ln view of foregoing, without examining the merits of the case, the Director General of Police/respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeal/representation of the petitioner within a period of 14 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made clear that till disposal of the appeal/representation, the impugned. order dated 7-11-2009 (Annexure — P/1), passed in respect of the petitioner, shall not be given effect to. X t Ashok