HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BJLASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUMiLKUMAR S|N WRIT PETiTION (S) N0. 5691/2010 PETiTtONER RESPONDENTS P.N. Nayak, Aged- 52years, S/o Late Shri K.P. Nayak, Working as- Assistant Grade-11, At- District Mining Office, Kanker, District- Kanker (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Secretary, Mining Resources Department, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Kartik Ram Sahu, Assistant Grade-11, District Msning Office, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) WRIT PETSTION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTtTUTION OF JNDIA Appearance: Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Pane! lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (01.10.2010) SUNILKUMARSiNHA.J. Heard. Petitioner- P.N. Nayak is working on the post of Asslstant Grade-II. By an order dated 09.07.2010, the petitioner was transferred from Kanker to Raipur. The said order was not executed by the petitioner and the petltioner remained at kanker. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 23.09.2010 (Annexure-P-1) has been Issued and the earlier order dated 09.07.2010 has been modified to the effect that the transfer order of the petitioner stands cancelled. IVIr. Kesharoani submits that the aforesaid canceliation has takeh place on the instance of respondent No. 2, who was to go to Kanker in pSace ofthe petitioner. Though, such plea is taken by the counsel for the petitioner, but no documents have been filed to show that infact the order of transfer by which, the petitioner and respondent No.2 were sent to the piaces of each other, was cancelied on the instance of respondent No.2. It is further irnportant to note that after issuance of order of transfer of the petitioner ^^^a^^ f ^"^w^ 'j %&^y WRIT PETSTION (S) N0. §691/2010 on 09.07.2010, the petitioner could not execute the said order to a very long period. Mr. Keshwarwani submits that since the petitioner was not reiieved, therefore, he couid not execute the earlier order. Bethatas it may. Since the eartier order of transfer of the petitioner and respondent No. 2 dated 09.07.2010 has been modified before execution of the said order, by the impugned order dated 23.09.2010, ! do not find any substance to intertere in the petition filed against the order dated 23.09.2010. !f the petitioner was Inclined to go to his transferred piace and he v^as not being reiieved by the concerned authorities, he would have approached this Court earlier, which the petitioner did not do and uitimateiy when the order of transfer was amended, then he has fiied the instantpetition. Thepetition is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby dismlssed. / Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge