mngég mnw‘g ® 6%(ML IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (c.G.) w.P. s No. é 2009 jay Prabhakar, S/o. Shri B.D. Prabhakar, aged about 37 years, P.C. No.23, Kashdol, District Raipur, R/o. Village- Chhatwan, Tahsil-Kashdol, District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS PETITIONER Patwari- (y, RESPONDENTS :1. The State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Secretary, Department of i1venue, D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3. Additional Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 4. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 5. KvTahsildar, Kashdol, District Raipur \ (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HEGH CGURT OF CHHATTE$GH AT ILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Jastice Prmnke? mwakea'; Wa"§% Peé§€§<m (S) No. 33% of 26% FETWEGNER Ajay Prabhakar VERSUS RESPGNDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and others. Shri Raghvendra Pradhan counse§ for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur and Shri Shashank Thakur, PL for the respondents/State. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTSTUTEON OF IND!A GREER (13‘012009) finaiiy. With the consent of the counsei for {he parties, the matter is heard Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 30.6.2009 (Annexure P-t) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the petitioner has been ransferreo’ from Patwari Heika No. 3? Nageda Tahsii Kasctoi to the office of SDO Bilaigarh as per the transfer policy of the State Government. Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been subjected to frequent transfer and from ?.7.2006 he has been transferred four times. Counsel for the respondents/State submits that it is not a transfer order but merely a posttng order issued by the Deputy Director. He further submits that the distance of the place where the petitioner has been transferred to, is not as such which may put htm in difficulty. Moreover, according to him, the headquarters of the petitioner has aiso not been changed and thus it cannot be termed as a transfer order. At this stage, counsei for the petitioner seeks to withdraw this petitton with liberty to make a representation to the authorities concerned. He also seeks for a direction to decide his representation expeditiousiy. Aocordingty, the petition is dtsmissed as withdrawn with liberty as , aforesaid. it is directed that if the, petitioner makes a representation withtn a period ot 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order, thesame Would be decided by the authorities concerned within a further I. ' = \ @ its receipt stric’iiy in accordance perm 6f three weeks from the date of with iaw. it is made ciear that this Cour‘i haS not touched ihe merits of the case and the authorities concerned wouid be free to decide the representation strictty in accordance with law. " i v Sd/— gg i Pritinker Judge DiWaker «r2