•5! a II a l^^^%^N^I;l.;^^'^N^f^^ «l<m:XSC3®RT':OB®M(i!m?IS©Jiy^^BBHi^^ •;DJ¥ISI^^N©N:"^':'{:..1-:''1:::.?;'::: e<SRAM Appellant? Mft'it^SDDeid3NoS28S^(:^OitO ®haitran»Rattl,tS/c>KShrNl^ncl|aijRan9 ^ ^|l|ipe(;t(>('||^^jat^>.l&OivSi©nat ;S^^{R^^^%::.:':,''^'.':j<^l':^i^:::i: :y:.^:;yersus.'/s''S':;'.: .•:•.'!.•:••. .;;';'- ^ygS|a|3e|rfj||jiitt||j^irt^^tti>^'il9^|t'®,: |J^e8|ja^|Reviiuell|^rBei||rj ; ©.t'^.BhavCTn,^ 2. CtoHe^r, ^ 3. Gofnmi^ion^^ GhiE tiS9aiFh,Nai(iur^G.) WFitADDealunderSec(io 2f1tli<»f;ttie;©tlhi^iaaarhHiati ;' ^.,:Gourt-(fti^ea^toltlieiDi^Si^.Benc A(^.2^ ^resent; VShn1Wanoj|Bube^eaTi|eEt;eoyi^^^ ^Kn Kishore.Sh^urKtle^^jAd^iS^^A^^ Genera|f6rth®S<Ne/re^hcleltePj; v l'':'^^D@S(re^:':';;;.::.:-.-^ .. . :"(30thgil|i|u!^((l||,: •,^ •^''•"^-i^ 'l I: The following ju^me^ iof <^ GOU^ f^eevGupta,G.J.,^ :::.••.,:/;•^:^;'^^^Y:-,<^ '"';' l:'p::.'l:.''::.^l.:l?l LeamedeQunsel Kfhel|^i^tl|ejfi^relon^iWs|^ 2) Apperflant Ghaitram ^jUiasjSlld the impugneit order datejd^^ N0.3508^01.0. ••...••" :":.'/-:.:;.:.^ III 1 'f'SiS 3) The appellant/ petitioner filed the writ petition for the following reliefs: °(i) That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to altow this petition by quashing the order dated 05.07.2010 (Annexure P-7) so far aS the petitioner is concerned including the costs of the petition. (ii) That the operation of the impugned order dated '.2010 kindly be stayed till disposal ofthe petition. (iii) That any other order or direction which is necessary in the interest of justice kindly be issued in favour of the petitioner." 4) The petitioner, thus, in substance was seeking quashing of the order dated 05-07-2010 whereby he has been attached to the office of Land Records, Korba for a period of one year only. 5) Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner did not find any infirmity in the order dated 05-07-2010, which was impugned in the writ petition. Learned Singte Judge, therefore, dismissed the appeltant's writ petition vide impugned order dated 06-08-2010. 6) Shri Manoj Dube, learned counsel for the appeltant vehementty argued that though the order dated 05-07-; mentions that the petitioner has been attached to the offiee of the T.and Records, Korba for a period of one year, in effect it is an order of petitioner's transfer from Raipur to Korba. 7) Shri Kishore Bhaduri, leamed Additional Advocate General, on the other hand submitted that on account of an urgent and immediate need of extra hands at Korba and Bitaspur, as many as 40 Revenue Inspectors including the petitioner have been attached to the office of Land Records; Korba and Bilaspur for a limited period of one year. 8) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the reasonings given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity either in the order dated 05-07-2010 whereby the petittoner has been attached to the office of Land Records, Korba or impugned order dated 06-08-2010 whereby tearned Singte Judge has declined to interfere in the matter. 9) The intra Court appeal, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed summarily. » Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/. R.N. Chandrakar Judge nlmml