("N S§ Cwér m THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASHJ); f MLM andavi, Sio Shri D aw Singh PE'HTIONER . M andavi, aged 3? years, Occupation- i Executive Offxcer Iangad Panchagat‘, Palm, Rm Block Colony, mlfagyéigu Tahsii 'Faiagi, D istrici Raigm‘ (C .GA) 1V9; mos W_ V WRIT PE TI’IION NO ‘ z Serviw,m§3gtlyp9s§9§aaChix‘rf -VERSU S— 1. State of Chhattisgax‘h through Sacretaty, Department ml Deveiapment, of D .K.S.Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) Panchayat 8: Ru Collector, Raipur (0.6.) Chief Executive Officer. lila hacha’yat, Raiput. F) t» 1 WRIT UNDER CE ARTICLE OF A SUH 22.6!22’? t” ABLE x OF WRIT. THE ORDERS CONSTITUTION OR DIRECTION OF INDIA ‘ w» I‘,A_E,0R iSSUrAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Pe1ition No. 2792 of 2003 Petitioner: " M. L. Mandavi Versus Respondents: State of Chhattisgarh 8r, others single Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotri. Shri Indra Sen Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner. Shxi Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advocate for the Respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No. 3, w ORAL ORDER ( 8th February, 2006) The following order of the Court was passed by Satish K. Apihotri, J. 1. The petitioner was working on the post of Chief Executive OiTlcer, Janpad Panchayat Deobhog, District~ Raipur was transferred vide order dated 13.6.2003 (Annexure P/ 1) to the District 'Panchayat (Development) Raipur. Thereafter on 5.7.2003 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner was h‘ansferred from Raipur to Janpan Panchayat, VPalaIi, District Raipur. The petitioner joined at Palari on 17.7.2003. Immediately after about one and a half month the petitioner was again transferred vide order dated 1.9.2003 (Annexure P/6) nom Palari to Janpad Panqhayat, Jaijepur, Disnict— Janjgir Champa. The petitioner has tiled this i ‘ petition impugning the order dated 1.9.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer/g. 2. This Court by interim order dated 10.9.2003 stayed the impugned order and allowed the petitioner to continue on the same place of posting at Palali. <3[ 3. Leanmd counsel for the petitionm‘ submits that by Vixtue of this ccurts order dated 10 9 9003 the petmoner has conhnued on the same old place of postmg and the nnpugned ortier was never alven effect to m respect of the petitioner. In fact the petitioner has got the enal relief by interim order. The grievance of the petitioner that he was subjected to ii‘equent transfer! does not survive in the facts of the case, that the petitioner has continued at one place for more than 2 years. The petitioner could not continue atone place forever. At this stage there is no question to go into the validity of the impugned order This petition has become mfructuous With the passage of time Accordingly the petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. However, respondents/authorities are at liberty to pass appropnate order for posting the petitioner m the pubhe interest and administlative eXigency, in. accordance with law. It is expected that the respondents/authorities will not insist upon compliance of the impugned transfer order dated 1.9.2003. No order as to costs. . Sd/w ,_ _, t Satish K. Agnihotri K Judge ’ Thakur