HC-78 ^wT ^i^irtq, y-^^|<ld, RriW^ *rTltC5T^<TT^ 3n^?TcpTRrlJch cT8TT3T1^5T9Rfcp \ 3H^?Tq^P (<3crf^6Rf) Wt200 B^TTW^^ 3H^$T W.tf. (81 N0.6329/2008 PBTITIQNER R.D. K/jlourya, aged 52 years^ S/o Shri Pati Rain Moury^, workiag as Dy. S,P. at Police Headq^iarters, Durg, Distdct-Durg (CG) Versilis RESPONDBSiTS State Depart|aient D.K.S WRIT PETITION <JNDBR ARTICLB226 OF THB CONSTlITUTION OF INDIA SB: HON. SHRI DHIRENDRAl 14-11-2008 Mr. T.K. Tiwari, counse| Ms. Sunita Jaia, Paael Heard, This is fhe second 4 iaipiigned his traasfer order by way of filing Writ disposed of by this Gourt, Uberty to fhe petitioner to before fhe concemed fhe concemed aufhority witih^ Thereafter, the order of Annexure P-2 dated Learaed counsel for who is Deputy Supermtende] Petitlon vide ftle authorlties .thjn represe^itatlon cpi<<[o41vi +ii+ioV^'f^^Sl\Ri^i<< ?l?3lf^T3TT^?T t>f Chhaftdsgarh, through fhe Secretaiy, of Horae & Police, Maatralaya, |Bhawaa, Raipur (CG) MISHRA, J for ffae petitioner. |Lawyer for the State. 2|ound of litigation. The petitioner had t)f Annexiu-e P-1, dated 20th August 2008 (S) No.4792/08 aad the same was order dated 2nd September 2008, with representation against his grievaaces aiid fhe sanie was to be decided by a furtibier period of two weeks. ofthe petitioner was rejected vide 18.9.2008. petitioner siibmits fhat the petitioner, tDie t of PoUce aad presently posted at Durg, C-78 ^vSf ^ iqio«,wrHfi^KB; Rrtixi^x TFRCT^HT^ 3TT^^Tcr)TR-|Jcb ^PTT3TT^$T9W<P V. Sinha 3TT^?T q^P (<jc|fj6|<£;) ^200 ?^nw^f^TT3n^$T aE|ywh< shohild is sufiering from serious hea^ in fhe year 2005 aad, tlierefc) fhat he inay be posted pzirposes of treatment he aspect has not been consider^d Haviag heard learaed <{ tlie facts and circuinstaiices | writ petition filedby fhe petitj to file representation aad ti^ rejected by the coinpetent a| opiaion fhat there is no exercise of jurisdiction unde^ agaiast the traiisfer order of 1( disinissed at fhe adraission gilound <pi<if0<i1vi *ii^oT^rfcl<:i ^Ri^i^ ^ 3Tf^T 3?T^^T pt aihnent. He underwent bypass surgery >re, the limited prayer of the petitioaer is ywhere except Narayaapur as for fhe be nearby soine big hospital aad tliis while decidiag fhe representation. 'ounsel for the parties, haviag regard to of fhe case, considermg tliat the earHer [onerwas akeady disposed ofwith libert\r le representation has been decided and ^ithority assigning reasons, I am of the for iaterference by this Court ia Article 226 of the Constitution of India |ie petitioner, Accordiagly, fhe petition is itsetf. s1|age Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge