SV ly^I RFMffN .3- fc? SnS 'c '^2 g -i IN THE HIGH COURT QF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Write Petition No?±^72006 PETITIONER ^^^ .>•?' ^^ y Si; 9^%/ .y ^^w RESPONDENTS O. P.-Sftrma S ksvv^s^ S/0 Sri R. C. Shunas)-la " ^ ^ Age about 53 years occupetion Sub In^tacterPolice Stadon Dongarhgaon Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. State Of Chhattisgarh o . _ gh, Secretory (home) Dep^rtment of home D.K.S.Bhawan MontralayRaipur Director Genral of polic<s^ Through D.I.G. (Administration) Police mukhylay Raipur (C.G.) Inspector -GeMal of police (Raipur Range) Police mukhyalay Raipur C.G. Setnoer, suporintedent of Plolice, R^ippr Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Supfcrihtandant ofPolice v~ Ryandgaon Dist. Rai]anadgaon(C.G.) M - ^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITU- TION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT OP MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER FQRM QR DIRECTION OR ORDER AS TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANTCES OF THE CASE V- t-- u 'y-i-ji .ji.-jn^--. 31^[^T h-t\ch SV^l ?ii^ ^rft^l TST •^ll-iiid^ •riiFlti'I.S, felRTTi: w. t^.^^^-^5-/ 200^ sii^i'^gsw(Tlt3 10^-2 trie il c|n unUer IVIr. Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, counsiel Mr. Satish Gupta, DeputyGo\jt. Heard on I.A.No.4851/2006,; It has been mentioned in th4 mistakes in theoriginal petition, the vnth corrected spellings, therefore, For the reasons mentioned irt allowed and the corrected/amended Also heard both the counsel Bythe instarft writ petition India, the petitioner has questioned (Annexure P-1) whereby the Range to Bastar Range. It is settled law that transfer is be legally challenged only on ttie gr()t contrary to the statutory rules. The ground taken by the pe( disc since 2004. He took treatment problem again restarted in 2005 & the Police Department and working different duty is being assigned to made ground for the chaljenge of| Department to consider the probtenji and for that purpose, the petitioner No.2 and respondent No.2 shall and take appropriate decision, lookirtg <b^Id4'RWCTf-'?f^S ifsK^ i? •siPgiT an^i for the petitioner. t. Advocate, for the State/respondents. jpplication for filing of amended petjtion. application that on account of spetling lietitjoner has ftled the amended petition amended petition may be accepted. the application (I.A.No.4851/2006), it is Ipetition is taken on record. merit. Articte 226/227 of the Constitution of |he propriety of the order dated 8-2-20W has been transferred from Raipiir petiti(|>ner is an incidenceofservice and same can >und of mala fide orif the same ia made (itioner is that he is a patient of old slip |at his native placeGwalior, however, the J2006. The petitioner is an employee of |as Sub Inspectbr. It is not a case where | ie petitioner, therefore, Ihis cannot be transfer order. However, it is for the ^ ofthe petitioner, tooking to his ailment 4an make a representation to respondent co|isider the same in an objective manner to theailment, if any, of the petitioner. XI-HC-22 31R?iqn R-li'* Si^f 3il|Wfflt(T Soma ^ y /f ^ ^r v^ -^wwi, ^rfre^re, LO.^^^^S-i ^ 3II^TTl(!TW^5?r With the aforesaid observatii disposed of. In view of this order, M.(Wj also stand disposed of. Parties are entitled.for certifiec ^iifi-i^ iw^ ^ fs^S tS^K w sifsgir aii^i bns and direction, the petjtion stands. IP.NO.I850/20)6 and I.A.No.4850C006 copy of this order. S61- L.C. Bhadoo Judge ['tft^^fe^