HIGH COVRT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPCR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS -^ :^.""i' WRIT PETITION(S) No. 47401 Deo Narayain Pathak, S/o Late Shri Chintaniwu Pathak, Aged afiout 57 years, JPresetitIy;jpost»S;.as Senior SeCTetary, Krisht Upaj ;Mandi. &uiutiy Raigaih, (CUiattisgarh) °' VERSU8: . .•,: 1. State of Chhattisgarfa, Throu^i Secretary, Departmeirt of AgriculfBre, Dau Kaly^ Bhawan, Raipur (Chhattisgarii) 2. Maiiagmg Drector, Chh&ttisgaiii Knsht Vigat^ Board Bhawan, Ravigtam, Telibaadha, Raipw, Dist. Raipiur (CMiattegarh) it^Z^.X'.^ 3. Shree Shantaau Panda, Mandi faspector, In-charge Secretary, Krishi Upaj Mandi SanuCAaiaadUlla, District Janjgir-Chaaipa (Chhattisgart^ . : . ., WRILPETI3TONUNDER ARTICLE226 OFTHE GONSTmj'nONOF DSiDIA SB:Hun>UeShriSa(tehK.Aenihutri.J. w Sresent: Shri Ashissh Shriva^sim, Advaeate fQrthfipetiticner. ^; ? s Shri Sat^Gupta, GtOwnttnent Advocats &r1faeiSfa^, Sbri R.S.Marhas, Advocate fbrthe respondentNo. 2. ^ Shri B.D.Gum, Advocate for the respondeiitNo. 3. ORALORDER (Passed on 28'" day of January, 2008) LA.No. 4. This is an applieationfor taking doeament on record. The application is orderedasprayedfiM'. ' The petitioner, working as Senior Secretary in Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, 'Rsiyib, by ordsr dated 30 July. 2007 (Aane^fe p/t), was Iransfened to Krishi Upaj Mandi Samiti, Amaadulla, District Jatijgn' Champa, on adimnistrative grounds. In his place, fhe respondent No. 3 vfas transfen-ed fi-om Amandulla, by the, same order. Leamed counsel contends that, beifig aggieved by flie order dated 30.07.2007, the petitioner approacfaedtliis Court challengmg the validity offhe impu@ied order mainly on two g-ounds. FBstly, the petitioner faas suffered on accountofseveral transfers made frequentiy, sccondly, it is mala&de exereiseofpower as the impu^iedfransfer OEderwsu passed ia ordertoaccomnK)datereq)on<tentNo.3. i; First contention offlie petitioner derives suppwt from the facts Ifaat thfi petitioner was posted at Krishi Upaj Mandi Sanuti, Bhatapara fi-om ^ 4. 8. where he was transferred to Jagdalpur. He joined at Jagdalpur on i. After serving one year at Jagdalpur MandiSamiti, fhe petitioner was transferred to Raigarh vide order dated 25.06.2007. Again, vide order dated in 30 July, 2007 (Aanexure P/l), the petitioner was transferred to Krishi Upaj Mandi Sanriti, Amandulla, Distdct Janjgir Champa, on administrative grounds. On second contention, leamed counsel for the pcstitioner would submit that there is no reason to traasfer the petitioner. It appears from perusal ofthe transfer order itselfthat it was passedto accommodate respondent >. 3. Thus, this is a malafide exercise of power influenced by extraneous consideratioas. Shri R.S.Marhas, leamed counsel appearing for fhe respondent No. 2, per contra, would submit fhat there is no question of malafids exercise of power as malafide is to be alleged against a particular person. Mere self-same statement fhat tiie order was passed to accommodate respondent No. 3, cannot be fhe basis for proving malafide against the respondent No. 2. In respect offrequent transfer, leamed counsel would submit fhat it is a routine transfer in public interest on account of administrative exigency. This impugned transter is the fhird fransfer jrom fhe year 2005. It cannot be held as frequent transfer as Ifae same was passed dueto administrative exigency. Shri B.D.Ouru, leamed coimsel for ttie respondent No. 3 would suhmit that Ihe respondent no. 3 has not tried to get the petttioner transferred and he is ready and willing to work at aay place wherever the respondent No. 2 posts him m public interest aad administrative eagency. Shri Satish Gupta, leamed Govemment Advocate, would submitthat the State is a formal party. The respondfent No. 2 is Ihe employer and it is for fhe respondent No. 2 to decide the suitability of posting of employees on admiiustrative exigency and public interest. A&w having heard learaed coimsel for fhe parties and pemsai of the pleadings and records appended Ihereto, it appears fhat after filine of this petition, the impugied transfer order was stayed on 14.08.2007 by ^^\ this Court. On flie streneth ofthe mterim order dated 14.08.2007.flie petitioner has continued on the same place. 9. In the meantime, during the pendency ofthis petition; the respondent No. 2 has also p^sed the order fhe order dated 20.08.2007 cancelling the impugaed order dated 30 July, 2007. However, in the order it is stated that the order was cancelledtiH the pendency ofthe writ petition. It is well settled that an order can be suspended during pendency ofany petition, but it cannot be cancelled for a limited period. 10. Since the order itselfhas been cancelled, there is no question to revive the order. The respondent No. 2, being the enroloyer is at liberty to place the petitioner as well as respondent No. 3 at a piace wfaere their services are required without any hindrance, in accordance with law. 11. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submits that in view ofthe fact tfaat fhe order has been cancelled, the respondent No. 2 may not iiisist upon compiiance ofthe order dated 30.07.2007. Shri Marhas, leamed counsel for the respondent No. 2 has no qusttrel witli this subnaission. 12. In view ofthe foregoing, it is not necessary to examine the case on merit as fhe leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner does not press other erounds raised above. 13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of, without insisting upon compliance of fce order dated 30.07.2007 (Annexure P/l), which is impusned herem, the respondent No. 2 is at Siberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law, keeping in view fhe public interest and administrative exigency. No order asto eosts. _____—-——~~ Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Aaiit i