^ ,7 /^ ?- )e£r^ -7 /^ IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH1 WRIT PETITIONfSl N0. ^^ 1/2009. ^ PETITIONER: <" Chandra Shekhar Sandey, son of Shri Ravilal Sandey, aged about 48 years, occupation--Rural Agriculture Extension Officer, Bilaigarh, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ^ versus Respondents ....^ ..<^... ^••^* ^ e^y" .-::^"y"" 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Agricultural Department, Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director, Agriculture,Lavandi, Raipur, „ District-Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Deputy Director, Agriculture, Collectorate Compound, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Sub Divisional Officer, (Agriculture) AT Block-Bilaigarh, Dista'ict4?aipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^'I^^T f^4J^ ^^ ^nt?T shi-ti^ WW^T W^ fx{\WW^, ^€)'H<T®,f^^l^^K ,.JlsJ:^...C^..,.^.. www 'WtlQ^I WtST ^IW (^iy^) ^sw^^^i^ ^mt^i^ ^m^n IT ^^ <R»!^r< iTi^m^?T SB : HON^BLE SHRS JU8TICB |»RITIDeKBRDIWAKBR 04.09.2009 Shri. K.N.Naiide, counsel Shri Yashwant Siagh Ths| Challeuge ia tlie presen] 29.6.2009 (aanexurc P/l) pa^ which the petitiouer who is Extension Officer, Bilaigarh ha^ Deputy Director, Agriculture, B| Contention of ihe coixn^ daughter is sufferiiig from. seri< elTect. He further contends tli^ For fhe petitioner. kur, Dy.A.G. for the State. petitioii is to ttie order dated sed by the respondent No.l by workiag as Rural Agriculture been transferred to the Office of gapur. ^l for fhe petitioner is fhat his |>us aikaent aad has to undergo oiajor heart surgery. He has $led relevant docunients to this .t the open heart surgery of fhe daughter of fhe petitioner is p^oposed withm a couple of days aod if at tiiis stage, fh:e petitioi|ier is coaipelled to go to Bijapur he wiil be in deep dtSiculty lj)ecause neiftier there is proper niedical facility uoraxiy tran^portation laciMty is there. He further submits that BO one 4as been posted ia place of the petitioner and that itself show^ exxgency. Contention of the couud ttie samie would be decided iii the difiBculties as faced by fhe| tlie adBitaistTative exigency. tiiat tibiere is uo administrative el for fhe State is tliat let fhe petitioner make a representatiJDu to fhe respondent No.l and ^ccordaace with law cousidermg petitioner aiid also cousideriiig ^TI^T ^ fipiw ^i^F 31T^T a>*?w -3^r '<ii^i<n4, ^fliy4i<o, [®icii-Hy 'wtw'aN^"""""^ •:'c )"- '"••^200^ 3;n^r IE^R^ (y»i^^) v^(T^R'9^3^rr -2--1 Counsel for th? representation. However is decided, tlie petitioner petitioner agrcesto maEe a t|e subinits fhat tiU his representa.tion be given sonie protective order. rfiay pet|tion Accordio.gly, fhe the petitioner to make a days froin fhe date of rece|.pt would be decided wifhia ^. of its receipt. TiU. then tliej order so far as it relates aad fhe petitioner shatl b^ preseiit place of postiiig. is disposed ofwith a directiou to I'epresentation wifhia a period of ten of tlie copy of this order, the same ^. period of fhree weeks froin fhe date operation and efiect ofthe iinpugned (to tlie petitioner shaU reiaaia stayed allowed to perform his duties ia fbe ^i^i^4S»i'WTcff"? fe^t ^I^H i? 3?fw a??^?r Sd/- pritinker Diwaker Judge