S) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) N0. 341 /2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS ff' .V^tS/ ^ir </ 7U/ L^7 :>'./''. / ~^y ^" ^ 1. 2. /3. , yp-e^iwjiacn, fii^cst r 'SS'^ewf^. A.K.Goutarii" Sub-Divisional Officer, Department of Water Resources, Sub-Division No. 1, Katghora (C.G.) VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, Through - The Secretary, Department of Water Resources D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) The Under Secretary, Department of Water Resources, D.K.S. Bhavan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) Shri R. N. Singh, Sub- Engineer/in-charge Sub-Divisional Officer, J.B.C. Sub-Division No.3, Birra, Dist. Janjgir Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCEOFA WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS, PROHIBITION, CERTIORARI ETC. OR ANY OTHER DIRECTION OR ORDER TO DO JUSTICE IN THE MATTER HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH^ BJLASPUR WRITPETmQN (SINQ.761 OF20_11 PETtTIONER A,K. Goutam RESPONDENTS Versus State of Chhattisgarh & others (Writ Petition underArtide 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Sunil Otwani, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri Saurabh Dangi, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Amrito Das, Advocate forthe respondent No.3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on this 28th day of July, 2011) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 2-2-2011 whereby the petitioner has been transferred from Katghora, District Korba to Ambikapur. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner has already continued at the original place of postjng for more than 5% months on account of interim order dated 9-2-2011 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 2-2-2011. .-It is accordingly ordered. 4. Since no effect could be given to the impugned order dated 2-2-2011 on account of the interim order dated 9-2-2011, it is not necessary to go into the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 2-2-2011, in the facts of the case. 5. In 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. - Gowri Sd/- SatisbK.Agnih«tn Judge