MM HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR r i 1 DIVISEON BENSH CORAM: HON’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ; HON’BLE SHRI SUML KUMAR SINHA, J. Writ Aggeai No.17 dfzmo Savitri Darveyg D/o Shri Kripal Das Darvey, aged about 42 years, Patwari Halka No.26, Loharshi, Tahsil Pamgarh, Dist Janjgeer — Champa, CG. Ag; gellant Petitiener. > VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh Thrcugh heir Principa! Secretary, Revenue & Disaster Management Department, Mantalay, DKS Bhawan, Raipur, CG eilector‘ Jam'geer — Champa, CGA esgondents f WRIT APPEAL SECTION 2 1 OF THE CHHATTISGARH (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006. Pfesent: /Shri Rajkamai Singh and Shri MK. Baeg, counsei for the appeuant. W Shri Alok Bakshi, Govt. Advooate for the State! respondents. JUDGMENT (21st January, 2010) The following judgment of. the Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, CJ Learned counsel fr the parties are heard on admission. 2) ‘ Appellant Savitri Darvey has filed this writ appeal against the ' impugned order dated 04.12.2009, passed in W.P.(S). No.6978 9f 2009. ‘ . T R C j o y i3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the foliowing Ireiiefs : [ “10.1.The Hon’bie Courtmay please be kind enough in quashing the orJier dated 08.09.2009 passed by the respondent No 1 102 The Hon bie Court may piease be kind enough in quashlno the order dated 3O 09 2009 passed by the respondent No.2. 10.3. The cost of this petition and any other relief which this Hon’bie Court deems tit, may piease be granted. " ‘ 4i The petitioner thus in substance was seeking quashing of ’ the order dated 30 09 2009 whereby the petitioner was transferred V‘; from Patwari Haika No.26 Lohars: to Patwari Haika No.21 Barganva. i 5) Shri Rajkamai Singh and Shri M.K._Baeg, teamed counsei for t‘nfe appeiiant vehemently argued that the order of the petitioner’s ‘ transfer is not iegally sustainable as the;§.ame has been passed in breach of the transfer policy 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the subrmssrons of learned counsel for the petitioner did not fnd any ground warranting interference in the matter and as such, the writ petition was dismissed vide impugned order dated 04.12.2009. ?); From para 4 of the impugned order we gather that the petitioner remain posted at her present place of posting for a period of about ten years During the course of hearing, it further transpired that Patwari Halka No 21 Barganva the place where the I petitioner now stands transferred Es at a distance, of about ; 30-35 Kms. from the petitioner’s‘present place of posting. 8) On due consideration of the subn‘tissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the above—mentioned broad features of the oase we do not find any good groundlwarranting l interference in i l this Infra Court appeal in the matter relating to appellant s transfer v 9) The writ appeal therefore is liable to be dismissed and is ? hereby dismissed summanly Sd/— v ‘ Chie st g f Juice i » i