I é) CA4” I SINGLE BENCH A BEFORE THE H N’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. G23} / 2011 (/H PETITIONER : L.B.K. Shrivastava, S/o Shri RP. Shrivastava, aged about 59 years, R/o 648-X, Street No.39, Smriti Nagar, P.O.: Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distict-Durg (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh— through the Secretary, Department of Home (Police), D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2)<’ Under Secretary, Department of Home (Police), D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 3)‘/Director General of Police, Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 4)’W Additional Director General of Police (Administration), Police Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.) 5)*""Inspector General of Police, Durg Range, Durg (C.G.) 6) (w Superintendent of Police, District- Durg (C.G.) r, 7) G.C. Vaidya, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Radio), Bhilai, District—Durg (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1) PARTICULARS OF PETITIONER: As mentioned in the cause title above. 2) PARTICULARS OF THE RESPONDENTS: As mentioned in the cause title above. ,_ M: A wwmmmmmmw\ / PETITIONER RESPOVDEN’I'S M HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'I‘TSGARH AT BU ,ASPI H: WRIT PETI'I‘ION (S) No. 6231 0f20¥ LBK. Shivastava. VERSI iS State ofChhattisgarh & OtharsV £0 W’RIT PETITION UNDER AR'HCLE 226 OF IHh COES’ITYU'IION OF INDIA M Present Shri Adi! Minh hri Arm: 3e10, N0. 1 to 6‘w SB: Hon’b’e Shri Satish K. A nihotri. J. Govermnent Advccate for iEm Staie/respcndeixt ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on 19 day ofOctabcr, 2011) a2: Advocate for the petitioner. 7‘ WWW I, Challenge in this petition is to the (Annexure P/l) whereby the petitioner? working as Deputy Superintendmt of Police, Headquaner Burg, has been transfarred to Radio: Bhilai, on admini smith/e gaunds. 2. ‘4hn Minha; kamed counsel appaarilzg for the petitioner $k1bn1its that The petitioner is aged about 59 yoays an ailing porSon and he has been advised not to do strenuous work as at an earlier poim of time, he had SllEerod muhiple fracture impugled transfer order is given effect to: the peiitioner shail have to do long traveiirig which wouid not be feasible for the petitioner, Sln‘i Minhaz iiirther submits th petitionei‘ dated order dated 10.10.2011. and only one yam is Ief? for hm superamumion‘ The petitioner is in hie hand, and if the at the representation of the 26.09.2011 (Aimexure 13/6) is still pending consideration and the same has not yet been decided. Learned counsel appealing for the State submits that in View of the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, if the M 1" E/ reprasematiom as stated abcve; is pending ccmideratiom the same shall be considered and (iecided as expeditiously as possible? préferably Within a pariod ofthree Weeks. 111 View 0f thé above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication. Accordingly: the writ petition is dieposed of with the aforestated observation. Amit Sd/— SATISH K. ANGNIHOTRI Judge