/ ..^ ^ tC 'l IN THE HON»BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P<S)NO. 3^7^ /2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS » '/^ ^l^ J^ ^.^. ^i%°?; ^'^w /^ *:">^' ^•/^ ^^ Lalchand Korram, S/o. Bendilal, aged about 44 years; R/o. Farasgaon, Tahsil Kondagaon^ District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through: Secretary, Tribal Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2] Commissioner, Schedule Cast and Schedule Tribe Welfare Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 3] Assistant Commissioner, Tribal Welfare, Jagdalpur, District Bastar 4] Collector (Tribal Welfare Department), Jagdalpur, District Bastar (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^ ^— <' PETITIONER RESPONDENTS MIGH COURT QF CNHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 3872 OF 2010 Lalchand Korram \ • • • •• • • Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of india) Singte Bench : Hon'bie Shri Satish K. AgRihotri, J. Present > Shri Manoj Paranjre, Advocate forthe petitioner. Shri Arun Sao, G^vernment Advocate for the State. ORDER (Passed on th.'s 28th day of September, 2011) 1. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner sybmite that by order dated 15.07.2010 (Annexure P-1), passed by the respondeot No,1, the pelitioner has been transferred from the offsce of Btock Education Officer, Farasgaon to the office of Block Edycation Offioer, Shankargarh. Again on the same day, vide order dated 18.07.2010 (Annexure P-2), passed bythe respondent No.3, the petitioner has been transferred from the office of Block Education Officer, Farasgaon to the office of Biock Education Office, Makdi. 2. Shri Paranjpe, further submits that the order (Annexure P-2) passed by the respondent No.3 has aiready been complsed with by the petitioner and has Joined the new piace of posting in pursuance of the said order. The order (Aonexure P-1) passed bythe respondent No.1 has not been given effeot to for more than one year. Therefore, at this stage, the petitioner is not pressing the instant writ petition, ^ the petition has become Infryctuous. - - . : ' 3« Leamed counsel appearing for the State re^pondente does not controv6rt the above subnnission made by the petitioner. 4. Accordingly.the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. ^ QShok Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge