/' ('^ ^ ^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATUSGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) W.P.NO. n.r: ^(^Z-/2002 PETITiONER ,-'^.f ,*•* EMIL KUJUR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, "fJ-^L\^ S/0. SHRI FRANSIS KUJUR, GENERAL ^•T^.^" MANAGER, DISTT. TRADE AND INDUSTRIES CENTRE, RAIGARH, CHHATTISGARH. . ^•'. •• i^y. .^:^\^ ^y.-^ '<<^"'.^""cr Ci'- RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1)..^ STATE OF CHHATTISGARH, THROUGH : THE SECRETARY, COMMERCE AND RURAL INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC UNDERTAKING DEPARTMENT, MANTRALAY, RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 2) THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF INDUSTRIES, KHANIJ BHAWAN, RAIPUR. 3) THE COLLECTOR, RAIGARH. 4) A.K. SINGH, S/0. K.P. SINGH, MANAGER, DISTT. TF^ADE AND INDUSTRIES CENTRE, RAIGARH (CHHATTISGARH) WRITPETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. S-!K>22 ^^.''ll^tcW.'.a^ltms^lw'"!^' :'=?'A^Kii'"?r"-"— @ 't-' SII^T'^I l<*il<<i <^i^i sti*tich tt^a 3n^?r iRra? CQ;P.K8.SSsJ NINMI St»11% a»2_ ^^St' SII^I^TOT^ltel &ivJsionBench;- 2. €\ Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo. J. 19.06.2003 Shri P.P. Sahu, counsei for Shri Ayaz Noved, 6ovt. Ad< Heard both the counsel. In this writ petition, the the order dated 07.03.2002 p<| Tribunal arid atso to quash the tr^ by respondent No.l. The petitioner was workin; and Industries Centre, Raigarh. the Directorate of Trade ondt Annexure P-3. The petitioner Administrative Tribunat, Raipur, Two contentions were urged, be| petitioner. One was, during the been issued. The iTribunal has !t issued by order.cef the Hon'blej impugned order of tromsfer issu^i with. So far as the second conl fhe petitioner. 1'ocote for the State / respondent. (^stitioner has sought for quqshing of ^ssed by the State Administrative tnsfer order dated 06.12.2001 issued cr>l^taiil'i ^*i<i'?^Tss^ <f<i|t^K ^T <^P(I4 <K^^ J. and gs Seneral Manager, Oistrict Trade (•le was transferred to the Offjce of Industries; Raipur by the order chjailenged the same before the State ^i Originai Application No.1349/2001. Fore the Tribunal, on behalf Of the feriod of ban the tnansfer order has teld that the troinafer order can be Chief Minister and therefore, the |d by the State cannot be interfered |®ntionnamefy, if he is transferi'ed, B!B' li)l; XI-HC-22 G58. ^i^ <^<t Stki^^lEpt Soma 1 L^f Ili^lfl taiuu^.r(uidl^ui*.] 'S^ •<H<Wt<(, BTOl^ftS, &ICTt«<y %^?r xl^i? CJ^ ^^ & *tl*tCT««»1tct> 2892^ Iq^g' si^^nwAs — 3. trcbsf' the educatiQnof his children wd Tribonal after tgking into consid< of the case has directed that th^ petitioner in compliance of the he may be relieved on 1 May, Hgving regai'd to the ordei the opinion that it is not a fit cas^ The petition te therefpre| dismissed. 200(2 Sd/- chiefJustice <t»l<'fefit'EER^ "^ 'I^^E <fo^}< i? dtpdMi^t uiy be affected is concerned, the fation the facts and circumstances respondents shouldnot retieve the nsferorder tilt 30fltApril. 2002 and passed by the Tribunal, we are of to admit this petitipn. liable to be dismissed and it is Sd/- , L.C.BHADOO Jiudge