wiwa mmbii @ C/f/JDI/W 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N06353 OF 2006 PETITIONER y Powan Prakas Baghel, S/o Shu' Chadi Lal a \ Baghel, age about 25 years, R/o Village Mohanbhata, P.O. Bharari, Disttict—Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS /1] State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secreatary Revenue Department, Raipur (C.G.) /2] Collector, District— Mahasamund (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/é4 /‘ V OF THE A5,. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA , J HASH COURT §E CHHATT!$GARH AT ELASPUR ING QN’BLE MR. SATEH K. G LIG WRJ? PETH‘EGN ($.§ NC.$953 OF 2905 Petiticne; : Powan Prakas Baghe! \IQYSUS Resnondems : Siate of Chhattisgarh and another Present : Mr. Ashok Dubey, counsel for the petitioner‘ Mrs. Arum Ahuja, Deputy Governmen‘z Advocate for the respondente/State. GRDER (Passed can 14m Day of $ecember, 2006) The petitioner was posted at Paiwari Haika No.31, Bhokaludih. Tahsil Pithofa, Dismci: Mahasamund. By the impugned kansfer order dated 39-11-2055, {he peéitioner was ii'ans‘ferfed irem Patwar§ Hake Na.31 to Paiwmi Haika No.19 Mthin me same ia‘neii and dismci. The petitioner has impugned “the transfer oreiei an the ground ihet the order is maia fide as the eame hae been passed on the basis oi neiiticai pressure sf one snri Prem Shenkar Patei. Seoondiy, the Coiiector has no power to transfer any Government sewent according to ti e transfer policy. 2. The petitioner has not impieaded $hri Prern Shenkar Patei as a party -— respondent against whom a maiicious aiiegation has been made. The petitioner has further questioned the competence of @ the Celiector on the basis of the transfer poHcy, which pressrébes that m transfer can be made after 30-6—2005 except in coerci§nat§an with the Chief Minisier through the Chief Seafetai'y. 3. The petitian dces not contain ail the materiai facts except a bold statement that violation of the transfer poiicy hae been dane. The petitioner couid not estabiish aliegatien of male fide as the person against whom the aiiegation has been made is. not impieaded as a party — tespondent to this case. This cannot be entertained. 4. With regard to vioiation of the transfer poiioy, if the transfer causes prejudice to the petitioner, interference may be required, but not in the preeent case, where the petitioner has been transferred within the same Tahsil Pithera from ene biock to other block in the same district The petitioner has not shown any prejudice caused to him in the pieadings. it appears to be simpie aiiooation of work irom one patwari haika te other petwari haika within the same tahsii and district. 5. The petition is devoid of merit, tacks materiei facts. Thus, the petition is dismissed summariiy. No order as to costs. J Sdl— i Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Gopal \