INTHE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W. P.N0. '?>&2- OF 2003 PETITIONER IIS'il p ^-••^& ^^^^•^^ ^•^w3'"'^0^--'' •^^^^y""' ><•-'- R. K. Tiwan, S/o Late R.P.Tiwari, aged about 48 Years,Occupation-Service, Presently posted as Forest Range Officer, South Kondagaon Division, Kondagaon, Distt. Bastar Chhattisgarh. pieE daW RESPONDENTS VBRSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Deptt. Forest, Mantaralaya, D.K.S Bhawan, Raipur [C.G.] 2. Shri B. K. Lakra, Forest Development Officer, Social Forestiy, Jagdalpur Forest Division,Jagdalpur Bastar [Chhattisgarh] WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/^7 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA F$R ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF ANDAMUS PROHIBITION AND OTHER SUITABLE WRIT OR WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIOSS, ORDEROR ORDERS: :-+ XI-HC—78 's^ ^rraM^, t?tfl'H<i<o, ftcii'M'j,< afTI^T'q?R7(lj°f(-l«l<(tt) ant^^'i^Tra' gE?? 311^1 iB^licB ^ Ta:o^ Shri Manindra Shrivsastava, 4ounsel fop the petitioner. No.l. Shri Ranbir- Singh Marhas, ^ Shri B.&. @ufu, counse! fop r ly this writ petition under ^rat^h TTp^ff Tr i^^ ^sTfinsn^Ti ovt. Adwcate for the State/respondent sspono'ent No.2. Artlcle 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenge<| his transfer order dated 06.10.2003 by which the petitioner' has been tr^isferred from Bastar to Sffl-guja. The petjtioner- is worklng as Forest Ran^e Officer. I hwe heard the lea-ned eotjnse! for the partles. (tioner submits that the petitioner's only •earned counsel for the pe- gr'ievaice ogainst the said transfe^ is that he h<s been trangferred in the mi'd sessipn and his son js studyiry ^C^ass-t^ at Kondagaon and he is not in a position to move his famiiy I" the affected in the ir.id sesslon, ther^fore, the respondents are requlred to show (2dirsinistrative exigency as it t-'— Learned counsel for the Sti ild session dnd this transfer has been Is not a transfer in the norrnal transfer te/respondent .1 submitted that it is not that oniy the peti.tlsner' has b^en transferred by the Impugned order, but in all 47 officers were transf^r'red and this is a generai transfer iist, which was issued on admlnistruti^e exigency ond the petitioner has not mentioned ug to how long he wcjs working at that piace. He further submitted that the petltioner- 'A'as (vor'king at Kondagaon for more than four years, ther-efore, the trensfer was (nature. ^^qEiqsa^ > "!^-!ll''i "it;! N XI-HC—7S sn^i'^Ritew ~^\ 3TI^T^?N? m Somu ^'^ 's^r •<ii<<i<n<i, •aDl+i'is, fcicii'yy,'!. ,.....^^.....B.^.2,4;./.. 3I1^?I 'tTSffi' (^qf^SI^q) ^WR^lfet 311^1 Leartied counse! for respor|dent No.2 submitted that respondent No.2 s. In t'ne elrcumstances, the transfer of had already 'tuken over* the chw^< the petltioner cannot be stay-ed. Havlng he<r-d the learned ]counsel for the parties. hwii^ regiird to the facts and circumstances of tljse .ccse and hwing reg-ard to the grievance of the petitioner thut he is pj-epared to move on transfer after the educational session of hls chi'd authvrittes should conside" his a r-epresentation within ten days +iif<'i''il-f ^tiraf 'ii fei?t Tfii^R ^siRn an^i is compieted and ror that purpose +l-» ifJ^ case, and as the iearned ©overnment Advocate submits that fo" th|ri' purpose the petitioner can make a r'epresentatiqn to respondent-aulfioritles, the petitioner is allowed to make from todff>' to r-espondent No.l raismg al his grievances and in turn, respon^ent hto.l Aall consider the repr-esentation of the petitioner- and approfjriate (yder within 30 daya from the date L? of r-eceipt of the same, in an obje^ttve manneriwth u reasoned order. In the meantime, till the end of edusatjonal session of theson of the petitioner, the petitioner should not b^ forced to vacate the ©overnment accoFnmodatlon al'otted to hlm at |;lond<gaon. Wlth the above observa|ions and directions, the petition staids dlsposed of. Con Consequently, M.(W.)P.No.j3271/2003 and I.A.No.10393/2003 also disposed of. Parties are entltled for cesftified copy of this ordet\_ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Jiudge •i?^o •|:1 •!;!^IP:^I: