IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGRH AT BILASPUR W.P(S)No.5‘5él /201o 3iNGiE BENW. PETITIONER Jagat Narayan Singh Age 52 years, S/o Late shri Ganesh Singh D—5 C. K Awas, Ashok Nagar SeepatRoad Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1. State ofChhattisgarh Through,The Secretary Department of Finance Dau Kalyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (CG) Secretary Department of Water Resources Dau Katyan Singh Bhawan Raipur (CG) 3. Engineer in Chief Department of Water Resources SirpurBhawan Raipur (CG) Chief Engineer Department of Water Resources Husdeo Kachar Bilaspur (6G) z / WWW ‘ war m w WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IND!A PETITIONER HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) NO.5361 OF 2010 Jagat Narayan Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Vinay Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri N.N. Roy, Panel Lawyerfor the State. RESPONDENTS Present :- ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 9‘“ day of March, 201 1) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 3-9-2010 by which the petitioner has been transferred from Hasdev Bango Kachar, Bilaspur to the office of Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources Department, Sehawa Bhawan, Raipur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of posting for more than 6 months on account of interim order dated 20-9-2010 granted by this Court. The State/respondents may be granted liberty to pass appropriate orders keeping in view public interest and administrative exigency. Learned counsel further submits that the State/respondents shall not insist upon compliance of the impugned order dated 3-9-2010. It is accordingly ordered. 4. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 3-9-2010 on account of the interim order dated 20-9-2010, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 3-9-2010, in the facts of the case. 5. ln view of the above, according to learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, nothing survives in this petition for adjudication at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of. No order asto costs. w Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge A K. Gowri