HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR *1i-'...- • • W.P.(S) N6. 4272of2007 PETITIONER Gamen]al Mandavi, S/o.—Shri Jagduraiii Mandavi, Aged about 45 years, Rural' Horticultufal Development Officer, R/o.- Village Devarsur, Post Kaourkasa, Tehsil Ambagarh Chowki; Distt.- Rajriaadgaon(C.G;) Y RESPONDENTS Vcrsus • ?; 1 Stateof Chhattisgarli, Through the Secretary, , AgriGultural Departiaent, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipiir (C. G.) 2 Director, AgricuItural/Horticultural DevelopEaent, Kaoihardili, VIP Estate A-7, Raipur?(C.G.) 3 Assistaat Directbr, Horticulture Departiiient, Rajnaridgaon (C.G.) 4 ShriVijayNikose,S/Q.-notkaown, Rural HQrtiGulture Developinent Officer, Jagdalpur, Distriet Jagdalpur (C.G.) Appearaace: Shri Anup MaziiTndar, couiisel for the petitiQner. Sbri Ajay Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer for the Sfate on advance \ copy- ' •; 1;- .- . • '•. • ORALORDER (24.07.2007) SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. Heard onadinission. , Leamed couiisel for tlie petitioner subiaits fttat earUer, the petitioner was trausferred by aii order dated 27.12.2005. He has chaUenged the vaUdity of the aforesaid order in W.P. No. 238/2006, which came up for hearmg on 17.1.2Q06. On the said date, fhe petitionwas finaBy disposed ofwlfh adirectioii to the petitioner to niake a representatiori to the coiicemed aufhority against fhe said order aad itwas also directed fhat if :y. ;. ,.-:..^., W.P.(S)No. 4272 of 2007 such a represeritation is ffled, the coiapetent aufhority shaU decide fhe same on its own uierits in accordaace wifh law as early as possible preferably wifhin a period oftwo iiionths from the date of receipt of representation. He subinits fhat fhe Court furfher directed ia fhe last para of the order that if the petttioner has not been reUeved, he be aUowed to contiLaue till the next date of hearing. His submission is that fhereafter, a representation was filed and fhe petitioner was not reUeved but ultiiaately he has been reUeved by the Impugned order dated 12.9.2006 (Annexure-P/4), which could not have been doue in view offhe earUer order passed by fhis Court. I have gone through fhe contents offhe earlier order dated 17.1.2006. Though it has been nientioned in. fhe order that tf ftle petitioner has not been reBeved on the said date, he be allowed to contuiue tiU fhe next date of hearing but fhe petition itself was not kept pendiag and was finaUy disposed of on fhe said date, therefore, fhe question ofnot relieving tfll next date of heanng ofwrit petition does not arise and fhe order so passed by fhe High Court in the said petition wiU not reinain as aa impedixuent agaiast the relieviag of the petitioner as per the earlier prder because no such directipn was fiaaUy issued in favour of the petitioner and if after att fhis, fhe petitioner has been reUeved inconsequence of earlier order, fhere appears to be no fllegality coiiunitted by fhe aufhority eoncemed. I do aot find any reasou to iaterfere with the relieving order dated 27.12.2005. The petition has no aierits aad tiie same is dismissed at the motiou stage itself. ^—~ Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti