.MF wwy/A IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETlTlON §Sl No. §~§Qg OF 2010 PETITIONER / Kavilash Tandon, aged about 49 years, S/o Shri Samaroo Tandon, Occupation, — Service, Working as inspector, Station House Officer, Police Station Supela, Bhiiai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh VERSUS 1. §ie of Chhattisgam, Through Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Home Affairs (Police), DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh RESPONDENTS / 2. Director General of Police, Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3’.” inspector General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, Raipur, Chhattisgarh § 4. lnspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 Superintendent of Police, Durg, Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT OR WRITS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, CERTIORARI, PROHIBITION, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDERS OR ORDERS OR THE LIKE f, Petitioner Respogde'nt WRIT PETlTiON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTiTUTiON OF iNDiA Present :- Shri Ranbir Singh Marhas, Advocate for the petitiorier. Shri V.V.S. Moorthy, Deputy Advocate Generai with Shri N.N. Roy, Pane! Lawyer for the State. gth HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR WRIT PETIT!ONIS“} NO 2109 of 281K) Kaviiash Tandon State of Chhattisgarh 8. others. Versus (SB : Hon’bie Mr. Satish K. Agnihom’, J.) Giana? goRAL; (Passed on 3‘“ gay at May, e19 Heard leaned counsel for the parties. Case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was posted as inspector, in—charge, Police Station Durg. Without completion of two years of posting at Police Station-Burg, by order dated 12-1 1-2009 (Annexure Pit) the petitioner was transferred to Bastar. which is against the provisions prescribed under $ection 14 of the Chhattisgarh Poiice Act, 2007 (for short “Act, 2007”). Section 14‘ of the Act! 2007 provides that in case of administrative exigency the same shall be recorded in writing or on the request of the emetoyee, the bar of two years may be lifted. in the case on hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no request on the part of 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, 2607. Shri Marhas, further submits that being aggrieved by the impugned transfer order; the petitioner preferred an appeal under the provisions l\J gL‘v of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 to the Police Establishment Board on 16.11 .2009 (Annexure P14) Sub-section (3) of Section 22 of the Act, 2007 provides for consideration and dispose! of representation within a period of 90 days from the date of order. 00 days have iapsed; the Police Estabiishment Board has not passed any order. It appears thar the provisions of the Act, 2007 has been vioiated at two pieces i.e. distiy, while passing the transfer order without assigning the reasons and second/fir, by not considering the appeaiy’representation within 90 days,‘which is statutory prescribed limit. At his iuncture, Shri Moorthy. learned counsel for the State. submits that the pending appeal/representation of the. petitioner, before the Police Estabiishment Board. the same shall be considered and decided within a period of 14 days. in View of foregoing, without examining the merits oi the case, the Director General of Policelrespondent No. 2 is directed to consider and decide the pending appeallrepresentation of the petitioner within a period of i4 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is made ciear that tiii disposal of the appeaifrepresentation, the impugned order dated 12.11.2009 (Annexure P/i), passed in respect of the petitioner. shall not be given effect to. Sd/— SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge Arun f